Or they may launch another bunch that don't necessarily incorporate everything hardwarewise that needs to change but still let them test. Getting several bunches in orbit in different phases of the process seems like good practice.
Musk just asked at Tesla shareholder meeting whether SpaceX's Starlink internet will reach cars.
His response: SpaceX probably has the most advanced phased array antenna in existence, including the military. But it's about the size of a pizza box. That would look weird on a car.
Could @Tesla cars be equipped with #Starlink satellite antennas for internet connectivity? @elonmusk sounds doubtful. Pizza-size antenna would "look a little odd on the roof of a sedan." (1/3)
.@elonmusk says main value of #Starlink satellite constellation is to provide "low-latency, high-bandwidth access to relatively low-density areas" such as rural and semi-rural environments. (2/3)
#Starlink satellite service is "not ideal for high-density cities," @elonmusk says at @Tesla shareholder meeting. (3/3) cc: @SpaceX
So now the key market is people that could buy service from HNS and Viasat?The HFT telecon market is small. There’s not “big money” there. This idea was never mentioned by Elon or SpaceX, it’s just an internet thing.
I thought the low-latency was the key to unlocking big money in HFT markets.
Some tidbits from Tesla shareholder meeting:
https://twitter.com/jackiewattles/status/1138574349231886339QuoteMusk just asked at Tesla shareholder meeting whether SpaceX's Starlink internet will reach cars.
His response: SpaceX probably has the most advanced phased array antenna in existence, including the military. But it's about the size of a pizza box. That would look weird on a car.
https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/1138574399890546688QuoteCould @Tesla cars be equipped with #Starlink satellite antennas for internet connectivity? @elonmusk sounds doubtful. Pizza-size antenna would "look a little odd on the roof of a sedan." (1/3)
.@elonmusk says main value of #Starlink satellite constellation is to provide "low-latency, high-bandwidth access to relatively low-density areas" such as rural and semi-rural environments. (2/3)
#Starlink satellite service is "not ideal for high-density cities," @elonmusk says at @Tesla shareholder meeting. (3/3) cc: @SpaceX
However mounting a pizza box size trainable antenna on the Tesla semi seem a lot more doable. Think most trucking companies wants internet connectivity with their trucks just for vehicle tracking alone.And I would think that semis are also far more likely to be out of range of cell data coverage than passenger vehicles are.
However mounting a pizza box size trainable antenna on the Tesla semi seem a lot more doable. Think most trucking companies wants internet connectivity with their trucks just for vehicle tracking alone.One great application is for real-time, high-quality video from anywhere without the high fees associated with cellular data connections. Many trucking companies have installed multiple cameras on their truck fleets, including in the cab, and monitor those feeds for driver noncompliance with regulations and for instant review of footage when sensors indicate there has been a collision. I have family members that worked in that area; reviewing video in real-time or near real-time. Of course, there's also the need for vehicle location tracking, but other data that would be useful is telemetry for certain kinds of cargo; e.g. temperature of refrigerated trucks, monitoring of hazardous loads, etc.
And real-time monitoring of cargo trucks will become vital once autonomous driving becomes more commonplace.Already a thing.
And real-time monitoring of cargo trucks will become vital once autonomous driving becomes more commonplace.Already a thing.
>
For 3%
11.3 B/month or 135.5 B/year
For 5%
18.8 B/month or 225.9 B/year
Thats a lot or revenue
Even if they only achieve .3% in 10 years that is still $13B to$23B.>
For 3%
11.3 B/month or 135.5 B/year
For 5%
18.8 B/month or 225.9 B/year
Thats a lot or revenue
Mars Needs Women,...men, hardware, habitats, boring/drilling equipment, Tesla-M vehicles, reactors....and Musk could take Tesla private.
just doing some back of the napkin calculations, during the tesla earnings call said that they want starlink to serve 3-5% of the worlds population, using an arbitrary monthly price of $50 starlink would earn:The vast majority of those 3% could never afford $50 a month. And I doubt they get more than %30 of any market.
For 3%
11.3 B/month or 135.5 B/year
For 5%
18.8 B/month or 225.9 B/year
Thats a lot or revenue
Great initial posts, Kragrathea, welcome to the Forum.
General question to anyone reading, the power and telemetry buildings seem to be able to stand up to the environment. I'm not too sure about the situation with the antennas on the flatbed. Seems like they will get covered up by snow during the winter season. Would they be better on some towers?
I think a more realistic back of the napkin is this. They have filed with the FCC for 1mil base stations (presumably in the US). Lets assume they get $100-500 a month per (those base stations serve to 100s of users so 1-5$/mo/user). And $100m-500m/mo revenue for SpaceX from North America. About the same from Europe, presumably less from places like Africa where even $1 per user would be too much.
They have filed with the FCC for 1mil base stations (presumably in the US). Lets assume they get $100-500 a month per (those base stations serve to 100s of users so 1-5$/mo/user). And $100m-500m/mo revenue for SpaceX from North America. About the same from Europe, presumably less from places like Africa where even $1 per user would be too much.Sorry but you cannot connect 100 users (= homes or families ) to one terminal via wi-fi in rural territory...
Starlink isn't designed for one base station=one house hold. I'm not saying some people wont do that but that is not the intent. Again they have applied for 1 mil base stations in the US. That is 1 per 127 house holds. Or if they get to 3% 1 base = ~4 households.
Check me if I am wrong but phased array or not one sat can only look at so many base stations at a time before it becomes overwhelmed with signals. I think thats part of why Elon have said it isn't for urban areas. So they have to limit the total number of ground stations. And if it so cheap that everyone wants his own fast gigabit pipe to the sky they will have too many base stations to handle. I expect it will _have_ to be priced high enough per base station to discourage one household per.
Anyone here, heard if Starlink has applied to the CRTC in Canada for authorization to sell the base stations in Canada? Presumably they would need to pass regulatory inspection for use? The Website for Starlink does mention that the first six launches would cover the USA AND Canada.I mean there are 2 different theme
Starlink isn't designed for one base station=one house hold. I'm not saying some people wont do that but that is not the intent. Again they have applied for 1 mil base stations in the US. That is 1 per 127 house holds. Or if they get to 3% 1 base = ~4 households.One household per is the only way to for it to work in rural America, where houses are separated by miles. There is for sure a market for shared ground stations elsewhere, but it's a function of housing density. Luckily both ends work as a function of density in a way that could cancel out, we'll see if there's any dead zones where it doesn't close, other than the densest urban areas, where data demand would exceed data supply, even if you split it up.
Check me if I am wrong but phased array or not one sat can only look at so many base stations at a time before it becomes overwhelmed with signals. I think thats part of why Elon have said it isn't for urban areas. So they have to limit the total number of ground stations. And if it so cheap that everyone wants his own fast gigabit pipe to the sky they will have too many base stations to handle. I expect it will _have_ to be priced high enough per base station to discourage one household per.
I think thats part of why Elon have said it isn't for urban areas.I see 3 reasons:
Anyone here, heard if Starlink has applied to the CRTC in Canada for authorization to sell the base stations in Canada? Presumably they would need to pass regulatory inspection for use? The Website for Starlink does mention that the first six launches would cover the USA AND Canada.I mean there are 2 different theme
1) Starlink`s satellites will cover part of Canada territory near border with USA
2) Starlink has to ask Canadian Authority (=CRTC?) for right to use standart Ku Band frequency 11-14 GGz in Canada. But Canadian Satellite Operator Telesat (about 30% shares has Canada’s Public Sector Pension Investment Board ) has 13 own satellites on GSO, which use Ku band and plans for own LEO constelation TeleSat LEO, (will use only Ka band) , but TeleSat LEO as constellation will compete with Starlink ..
Space X has to convince CRTC that Starlink`s constellation will not interrupt Telesat`s GSO Satellites ...
1) In cities mostly houses had fiber today. Why user will change existing provider??
By design, Starlink will not transmit if a GSO satellite is within 22 degrees (earth to satellite).
By design, Starlink will not transmit if a GSO satellite is within 22 degrees (earth to satellite).
What I found in Space X filing to FCC SATMOD2018110800083, SpaceX NGSO Constellation.
work area is more as 25 degrees (see attached file)
but for Anic F2, Anic F3 or Anic G1 in Winnipeg , Ottawa or Montreal have angles 27...29 degrees and interruption is theoretically possible
THIS.
1) In cities mostly houses had fiber today. Why user will change existing provider??
Because we absolutely hate those providers. They have abused their monopoly position for decades. I personally would pay slightly more, for slightly worse service just to act out my built-up hatred.
I'd bet I could get plenty of people in my subdivision (~250 houses) to go in together on a Starlink terminal just to give a middle finger to our local provider...
I'd bet I could get plenty of people in my subdivision (~250 houses) to go in together on a Starlink terminal just to give a middle finger to our local provider...
History suggests otherwise. When Google Fiber rolled out tremendously better service at low prices, they found way less uptake than they needed to make it viable. People just sort of shrugged and continued with whatever didn't require them to make changes or understand the difference between a kilobit and a gigabit.
We'd all make the switch in a heartbeat, but the kind of people who join an online forum to obsesses over the technical details of spacecraft aren't a representative sample of the general population. It seems most people would rather not worry about it.
You haven't seen the level of hatred directed at our local provider, then. Several of my neighbors are using 4G hotspots, even at a price penalty, to avoid the cable provider.I'd bet I could get plenty of people in my subdivision (~250 houses) to go in together on a Starlink terminal just to give a middle finger to our local provider...
History suggests otherwise. When Google Fiber rolled out tremendously better service at low prices, they found way less uptake than they needed to make it viable. People just sort of shrugged and continued with whatever didn't require them to make changes or understand the difference between a kilobit and a gigabit.
We'd all make the switch in a heartbeat, but the kind of people who join an online forum to obsesses over the technical details of spacecraft aren't a representative sample of the general population. It seems most people would rather not worry about it.
You haven't seen the level of hatred directed at our local provider, then. Several of my neighbors are using 4G hotspots, even at a price penalty, to avoid the cable provider.I'd bet I could get plenty of people in my subdivision (~250 houses) to go in together on a Starlink terminal just to give a middle finger to our local provider...
History suggests otherwise. When Google Fiber rolled out tremendously better service at low prices, they found way less uptake than they needed to make it viable. People just sort of shrugged and continued with whatever didn't require them to make changes or understand the difference between a kilobit and a gigabit.
We'd all make the switch in a heartbeat, but the kind of people who join an online forum to obsesses over the technical details of spacecraft aren't a representative sample of the general population. It seems most people would rather not worry about it.
Plus, when you have an existing market player able to leverage the force of government to protect its business (see Herb's example) you see "apathy".
The sat would likely not steer its spot over an area. It would likely use the same similar methodology of time share slots for uplink scheduled by the sat by sending the ground terminals their transmission package time slots. This is called Time division multiple access (TDMA). WiFi works in a similar manner.I suspected they might do that, since high gain up and low gain down sort of leads that way.
Wifi doesn't work with 10,000s or 100,000s of simultaneous connections. Thats what a single sat would have to do if everyone who hates comcast puts a dish on the roof.And?
And so it isn't relevant to the question: How many connections can a phased array sat be reasonably expected to handle at once.Wifi doesn't work with 10,000s or 100,000s of simultaneous connections. Thats what a single sat would have to do if everyone who hates comcast puts a dish on the roof.And?
the relevant stats are how many connections it can be expected to handle, the area that the satellite services, the maximum boxes per area density derived from this, and the general housing density of various zones of population to give that number contextAnd so it isn't relevant to the question: How many connections can a phased array sat be reasonably expected to handle at once.Wifi doesn't work with 10,000s or 100,000s of simultaneous connections. Thats what a single sat would have to do if everyone who hates comcast puts a dish on the roof.And?
Can someone who knows chime in on how many base stations one sat can reasonably expect to talk to at one time? As I understand it a phased array antenna uses signal processing to pick out individual sources. And these sources are high frequency wide band. There must be a limit to how many a modern signal processor can handle at one time.the process is called "beam forming" and is not different from the 5G designs. I see there are plenty of sufficiently good explanations of 5G on the interweb. Refer there.
the relevant stats are how many connections it can be expected to handle, the area that the satellite services, the maximum boxes per area density derived from this, and the general housing density of various zones of population to give that number contextAnd so it isn't relevant to the question: How many connections can a phased array sat be reasonably expected to handle at once.Wifi doesn't work with 10,000s or 100,000s of simultaneous connections. Thats what a single sat would have to do if everyone who hates comcast puts a dish on the roof.And?
So now the key market is people that could buy service from HNS and Viasat?The HFT telecon market is small. There’s not “big money” there. This idea was never mentioned by Elon or SpaceX, it’s just an internet thing.
I thought the low-latency was the key to unlocking big money in HFT markets.
Realize that HFT markets have dedicated point to point microwave links that for the most part can get even lower latency.
So now the key market is people that could buy service from HNS and Viasat?The HFT telecon market is small. There’s not “big money” there. This idea was never mentioned by Elon or SpaceX, it’s just an internet thing.
I thought the low-latency was the key to unlocking big money in HFT markets.
Realize that HFT markets have dedicated point to point microwave links that for the most part can get even lower latency.
Over land, yes. Across oceans it's still slow fiber. If SpaceX can get NYC–London under 50ms they'll have a hit.
Any clues as to Starlinks's downlink ground station costs?
It occurs to me that in addition to the low latency market, and the middle of no where market you have the extended suburbs, and other last mile problems market. Starlink doesn't need inter-satellite lasers to serve that market just a downlink station that hooks into existing backhauls in the city.
My area of town has lousy infrastructure the phone lines are crappy, often even for analog phone lines. Cable is also unreliable and prone to outages when it rains. but if I could use Starlink as a super WISP all that broken copper isn't a problem.
Any clues as to Starlinks's downlink ground station costs?
It occurs to me that in addition to the low latency market, and the middle of no where market you have the extended suburbs, and other last mile problems market. Starlink doesn't need inter-satellite lasers to serve that market just a downlink station that hooks into existing backhauls in the city.
My area of town has lousy infrastructure the phone lines are crappy, often even for analog phone lines. Cable is also unreliable and prone to outages when it rains. but if I could use Starlink as a super WISP all that broken copper isn't a problem.
Shortwave band antenna networks use more power to operate than several other bands. That is one reason why terrestrial SW, MW and LW radio stations are shutting down in several countries.So now the key market is people that could buy service from HNS and Viasat?The HFT telecon market is small. There’s not “big money” there. This idea was never mentioned by Elon or SpaceX, it’s just an internet thing.
I thought the low-latency was the key to unlocking big money in HFT markets.
Realize that HFT markets have dedicated point to point microwave links that for the most part can get even lower latency.
Over land, yes. Across oceans it's still slow fiber. If SpaceX can get NYC–London under 50ms they'll have a hit.
Apparently the HFT guys are doing shortwave to cut out the fiber repeaters, or at least trying.
https://sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com/2018/05/07/shortwave-trading-part-i-the-west-chicago-tower-mystery/ (https://sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com/2018/05/07/shortwave-trading-part-i-the-west-chicago-tower-mystery/)
So the standard to beat is shortwave bounce latency (and the unreliability of the ionosphere).
and for added crazy
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/05/04/the-neutrino-arbitrage/ (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/05/04/the-neutrino-arbitrage/)
pointing neutrinos THROUGH the earth is probably a shorter distance than a orbital lasercomm relay...
Shortwave band antenna networks use more power to operate than several other bands. That is one reason why terrestrial SW, MW and LW radio stations are shutting down in several countries.So now the key market is people that could buy service from HNS and Viasat?The HFT telecon market is small. There’s not “big money” there. This idea was never mentioned by Elon or SpaceX, it’s just an internet thing.
I thought the low-latency was the key to unlocking big money in HFT markets.
Realize that HFT markets have dedicated point to point microwave links that for the most part can get even lower latency.
Over land, yes. Across oceans it's still slow fiber. If SpaceX can get NYC–London under 50ms they'll have a hit.
Apparently the HFT guys are doing shortwave to cut out the fiber repeaters, or at least trying.
https://sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com/2018/05/07/shortwave-trading-part-i-the-west-chicago-tower-mystery/ (https://sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com/2018/05/07/shortwave-trading-part-i-the-west-chicago-tower-mystery/)
So the standard to beat is shortwave bounce latency (and the unreliability of the ionosphere).
and for added crazy
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/05/04/the-neutrino-arbitrage/ (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/05/04/the-neutrino-arbitrage/)
pointing neutrinos THROUGH the earth is probably a shorter distance than a orbital lasercomm relay...
However mounting a pizza box size trainable antenna on the Tesla semi seem a lot more doable. Think most trucking companies wants internet connectivity with their trucks just for vehicle tracking alone.And I would think that semis are also far more likely to be out of range of cell data coverage than passenger vehicles are.
Latency for semis might become an issue once autonomous driving becomes prevalent, as one would want a fairly fast connection in case remote manual control was necessary.
TS Kelso (of CelesTrak) has some concerns about the tracking of the constellation:
https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1141906661499711491
TLEs haven’t been updated for a bit, which can be done by government agencies or possibly by amateur observations. The fact that neither of them have been updating the TLEs means the satellites are very dim.TS Kelso (of CelesTrak) has some concerns about the tracking of the constellation:
https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1141906661499711491
Hi SWGlassPit, Can you possibly explain this for me?
The fact that neither of them have been updating the TLEs means the satellites are very dim.
Can you possibly explain this for me?
It at least has some correlation, I was going to attempt to do a video of the above train, and feed data to others as well as try getting TLEs myself, but they were not bright enough to see in my poor sky.The fact that neither of them have been updating the TLEs means the satellites are very dim.
This is nonsense. It says nothing about how bright the satellites are.
It at least has some correlation, I was going to attempt to do a video of the above train, and feed data to others as well as try getting TLEs myself, but they were not bright enough to see in my poor sky.The fact that neither of them have been updating the TLEs means the satellites are very dim.
This is nonsense. It says nothing about how bright the satellites are.
Interesting aspect of how the competition between Starlink and Oneweb is playing out: Oneweb has really staffed up in comparison to Starlink. Oneweb already has 750+ employees between the DC suburbs, Toulouse, and Melbourne, Florida. Starlink has about one-third that amount.
Is this a matter of spending efficiency or preparedness for scaling?
TS Kelso (of CelesTrak) has some concerns about the tracking of the constellation:
https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1141906661499711491
Hi SWGlassPit, Can you possibly explain this for me?
My mistake. I know that they DO rely on amateur observations for classified satellites.It at least has some correlation, I was going to attempt to do a video of the above train, and feed data to others as well as try getting TLEs myself, but they were not bright enough to see in my poor sky.The fact that neither of them have been updating the TLEs means the satellites are very dim.
This is nonsense. It says nothing about how bright the satellites are.
It doesn't. 18 SPCS isn't running outside with binoculars to try and find them.
quoted StarLink sats are all parked (see 540km circular orbit) and according to SpaceX are all active. Why 18SPCS should divert their precious resources to track normal objects on a boring for them orbit?
Key reference here are the rest of the not-observed objects. They are all boring.
One would be interested (especially astronomical societies) to have precise mapping of all sats in order to code observation patterns and it is indeed would be a nice subj for the next step of the Space regulations, but gosh this SpaceX bashing is really ridiculous.
NORAD has to track all of this already, don’t they? They have radar.quoted StarLink sats are all parked (see 540km circular orbit) and according to SpaceX are all active. Why 18SPCS should divert their precious resources to track normal objects on a boring for them orbit?
Key reference here are the rest of the not-observed objects. They are all boring.
One would be interested (especially astronomical societies) to have precise mapping of all sats in order to code observation patterns and it is indeed would be a nice subj for the next step of the Space regulations, but gosh this SpaceX bashing is really ridiculous.
A little more than half of the sats are very close to the 550km circular orbit. Some are a little above, some are still orbit raising, three still haven't moved much from the deployment orbit, and one appears to be deorbiting. 18SPCS doesn't just start ignoring objects because SpaceX fans want them to. There are no "boring" objects in orbit, they all need to be tracked.
NORAD has to track all of this already, don’t they? They have radar.
The 21st Space Wing is headquartered at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., and is the Air Force's only organization providing missile warning and space control to unified combatant commanders worldwide.
Home of 53 mission partners supported on Peterson AFB and Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station, including North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), U.S. Northern Command, Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command and the 302nd Airlift Wing (USAF Reserves).
LOCATION
The 18th Space Control Squadron (SPCS) at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, is located 160 miles northwest of Los Angeles, CA. The squadron is a geographically separated unit of the 21st Space Wing, Peterson Air Force Base, CO.
...
MISSION
- Deliver foundational Space Situational Awareness to assure global freedom of action in space
The squadron is the newest addition to the 21st Space Wing. It is tasked with providing 24/7 support to the space sensor network (SSN), maintaining the space catalog and managing United States Strategic Command’s (USSTRATCOM) space situational awareness (SSA) sharing program to United States, foreign government, and commercial entities. The squadron also conducts advanced analysis, sensor optimization, conjunction assessment, human spaceflight support, reentry/break-up assessment, and launch analysis. In addition, 18 SPCS also oversees 18 SPCS Detachment 1, located in Dahlgren, VA.
EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
The squadron is jointly located with the Joint Space Operations Center in Building 8401 at Vandenberg AFB, CA. The squadron operates Space Defense Operations Center (SPADOC) and the Astrodynamic Support Workstation (ASW) to task and receive observation data from the SSN and provide that data to DoD and non-DoD customers.
Approximately 64 military and 25 civil service people are permanently assigned to 18 SPCS. Around thirty military personnel are assigned to the operations flight, which is responsible for SPADOC and ASW operations. The remainder of the assigned military and civilian workers provide support and advanced functions in support of 18 SPCS operations.
HISTORY
...On July 22, 2016, 18 SPCS was reactivated at Vandenberg AFB, CA to perform the SSA sensor tasking mission.
18SPCS is not busy with tracking and reporting of all space objects. It's the mission for NORAD related unites' and their capabilities (and reports) are not public obviously.quoted StarLink sats are all parked (see 540km circular orbit) and according to SpaceX are all active. Why 18SPCS should divert their precious resources to track normal objects on a boring for them orbit?
Key reference here are the rest of the not-observed objects. They are all boring.
One would be interested (especially astronomical societies) to have precise mapping of all sats in order to code observation patterns and it is indeed would be a nice subj for the next step of the Space regulations, but gosh this SpaceX bashing is really ridiculous.
A little more than half of the sats are very close to the 550km circular orbit. Some are a little above, some are still orbit raising, three still haven't moved much from the deployment orbit, and one appears to be deorbiting. 18SPCS doesn't just start ignoring objects because SpaceX fans want them to. There are no "boring" objects in orbit, they all need to be tracked.
18SPCS is not busy with tracking and reporting of all space objects. It's the mission for NORAD related unites' and their capabilities (and reports) are not public obviously.
is this subtopic interesting enough to merit a carve-out?
TS Kelso (of CelesTrak) has some concerns about the tracking of the constellation:
https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1141906661499711491
Your tired meme doesn't really apply in this case. The process is not all internal to SpaceX.
I'd forgotten about that one, thanks for reposting. I found it funny and totally fits so many threads I read on here. Works even if you scratch out SpaceX and put some other entity in there.Your tired meme doesn't really apply in this case. The process is not all internal to SpaceX.
Ouch. Perhaps 'my' meme is more about injecting a touch of fun than finding a perfect analogy. YMMV, of course.
21st Operations Group does the tracking. 18SPCS does cataloging.18SPCS is not busy with tracking and reporting of all space objects. It's the mission for NORAD related unites' and their capabilities (and reports) are not public obviously.
That is false. 18SPCS tracks and catalogs all objects (although they don't publicly share data on many military satellites). NORAD did that a long time ago.
The squadron is the newest addition to the 21st Space Wing. It is tasked with providing 24/7 support to the space sensor network (SSN), maintaining the space catalog and managing United States Strategic Command’s (USSTRATCOM) space situational awareness (SSA) sharing program to United States, foreign government, and commercial entities. The squadron also conducts advanced analysis, sensor optimization, conjunction assessment, human spaceflight support, reentry/break-up assessment, and launch analysis. In addition, 18 SPCS also oversees 18 SPCS Detachment 1, located in Dahlgren, VA.They were formed as a cushion between uber secretive 21st and the commercial operators which cooperation is critical for the correct identification of space crap by 21st.
SpaceX said “Starlink is now the first NGSO [non-geosynchronous satellite orbit] system to operate in the Ku-band and communicate with U.S. ground stations, demonstrating the system’s potential to provide fast, reliable internet to populations around the world.”
That statement isn’t intended merely as a marketing boast: In documents filed earlier this month with the Federal Communications Commission, SpaceX says its “first to operate” status with the FCC means it can “select its frequencies first” if there’s a conflict with other satellite telecommunication networks in low Earth orbit.
SpaceX’s claim on that score has set off a flurry of regulatory filings from its rivals in the market for satellite broadband services, including the international OneWeb consortium and Canada’s biggest satellite operator, Telesat.
Personally I find SpaceX's argument kinda lacking, but we'll see what happens when the lawyers duke it out. I'm not sure how much difference it will really make anyway, you still have to split the spectrum between the two constellations in those cases.I think part of it is trying to strengthen their bargaining position. OneWeb always claimed to control more spectrum rights and for a while seemed to be ahead in deployment, which would give them a better position to argue for maintaining those rights (while preventing others like SpaceX from operating competitively), but SpaceX has now pulled ahead in deployment and appear to be ready for initial operations just as fast or faster than OneWeb.
"The failure of at least five percent of the first batch of SpaceX Starlink satellites has put a spotlight on the growing concerns that satellite megaconstellations could litter low Earth orbit with hundreds of dead satellites."
@joroulette:
What are 3 biggest worries about functionality? Is #ProjectKuiper added competition?
|
Musk: "We feel pretty good about these satellites ... we are trying two different deployment mechanisms for the solar arrays."
Space Development Agency releases its first solicitation
by Sandra Erwin — July 4, 2019
The SDA is looking to develop an "agile, responsive next-generation space architecture."
https://spacenews.com/space-development-agency-releases-its-first-solicitation/ (https://spacenews.com/space-development-agency-releases-its-first-solicitation/)
<snip>
Starlink for SDA
Ha!
Who hear can envision a technical bromance between the architect of Constellation and the architect of Starship?
What more unlikely duo than Griffin and Musk?
PUBLIC SUMMARY
License to Operate a Private Remote Sensing Space System
On April 8, 2019, the Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs Office of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA CRSRA), an agency of the Department of
Commerce, granted a license to Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), to operate
Starlink, which is now owned by SpaceX Services, Inc., a SpaceX wholly-owned subsidiary.
The license authorizes the use of sixty electro-optical satellites in an orbital plane of 400-550km
circular at an approximate inclination of 53°. Each satellite in the system is allowed to carry a
single low-resolution panchromatic video imager. The imager will capture low-resolution images
and video of Earth and the satellite itself.
Name, mailing address and telephone number of the licensee:
SpaceX Services, Inc.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
1 Rocket Road
Hawthorne, CA 90250
QuoteQuotePUBLIC SUMMARY
License to Operate a Private Remote Sensing Space System
>
granted a license to Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), to operate Starlink, which is now owned by SpaceX Services, Inc., a SpaceX wholly-owned subsidiary.
The license authorizes the use of sixty electro-optical satellites in an orbital plane of 400-550km circular at an approximate inclination of 53°. Each satellite in the system is allowed to carry a single low-resolution panchromatic video imager. The imager will capture low-resolution images and video of Earth and the satellite itself.
Name, mailing address and telephone number of the licensee:
SpaceX Services, Inc.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
1 Rocket Road
Hawthorne, CA 90250
QuoteQuotePUBLIC SUMMARY
License to Operate a Private Remote Sensing Space System
>
granted a license to Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), to operate Starlink, which is now owned by SpaceX Services, Inc., a SpaceX wholly-owned subsidiary.
The license authorizes the use of sixty electro-optical satellites in an orbital plane of 400-550km circular at an approximate inclination of 53°. Each satellite in the system is allowed to carry a single low-resolution panchromatic video imager. The imager will capture low-resolution images and video of Earth and the satellite itself.
Name, mailing address and telephone number of the licensee:
SpaceX Services, Inc.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
1 Rocket Road
Hawthorne, CA 90250
Assuming this is for the next flock,
Electro-optical = lasers?
Observing what, or...who? DoD demo?
The first launch was not the full production design, they lack the Ka-band payload. They've been referred to as Starlink 0.9. The next launch is supposed to be the production design (except for laser interconnects that will be added at some point in the future) with both Ku and Ka payloads, which would be version 1.0.
For production, the cost and time time to setup all the ground stations that won't be need once the interlinks are in place.
RULE NO. 1: BUILD NEW TECH FAST
....
David Goldman, SpaceX’s director of satellite policy, said the company is taking lessons learned building rockets and applying those to its Starlink constellation.
“Rapid iteration is the DNA of the company… a lot of that has to do with [the fact] that we design and manufacture most of the components ourselves,” he said. It’s very integrated. If the technicians who are putting things together find something that can be improved, they can go straight to the engineer who designed it and that can be fixed on the fly. That’s how you can iterate as quickly as we can do today.”
RULE NO. 2: AUTOMATE SELECTIVELY
...
SpaceX is uploading tracking data for satellites and space debris from the U.S. Air Force’s Combined Space Operations Center and other sources, Goldman said, so Starlink satellites can autonomously fly around hazards — not unlike the self-driving electric cars Musk is building at Tesla.
RULE NO. 3: LEAVE ROOM FOR FAILURE
...
Goldman said SpaceX sought with its first big Starlink launch to establish that failures with something so new shouldn’t come as a surprise.
“We are not going to have another launch until we watch these for a little while to see what works and what doesn’t, and then we can build that into the next models to make sure that they are better,” he said. “I think the best thing you can do is just be honest with the public and tell everybody what you are up to, and don’t say you are going to have 100 percent reliability if you can’t accomplish that.”
The first launch was not the full production design, they lack the Ka-band payload. They've been referred to as Starlink 0.9. The next launch is supposed to be the production design (except for laser interconnects that will be added at some point in the future) with both Ku and Ka payloads, which would be version 1.0.
This is a guess right? We don't have evidence one way or the other when the inter-satellite links are added.
For production, the cost and time time to setup all the ground stations that won't be need once the interlinks are in place.
The first launch was not the full production design, they lack the Ka-band payload. They've been referred to as Starlink 0.9. The next launch is supposed to be the production design (except for laser interconnects that will be added at some point in the future) with both Ku and Ka payloads, which would be version 1.0.
This is a guess right? We don't have evidence one way or the other when the inter-satellite links are added.
For production, the cost and time time to setup all the ground stations that won't be need once the interlinks are in place.
Not a guess, this is what SpaceX (Elon) has said is going to happen. The intersatellite links are not expected soon. There could always be a change of plans, but I'd be surprised if they launch any with the intersatellite links before at least mid-2020, probably later than that.
You can cache content in higher orbits, no? All the way to GEO even.. or at least sun synchronous, so the same locale-specific cache is over the same TV markets region at 8 pm...For production, the cost and time time to setup all the ground stations that won't be need once the interlinks are in place.
I expect that they'll still want a ground station visible from every satellite after they have interlinks. Either way the total bandwidth into the constellation is going to equal total bandwidth out of the constellation [1]; it's just a question of how much of the backbone is in space versus on the ground.
[1] Caching the Netflix library in space or multicasting the top Twitch streamers is presumably a feature for Starlink v3.0.
For production, the cost and time time to setup all the ground stations that won't be need once the interlinks are in place.
I expect that they'll still want a ground station visible from every satellite after they have interlinks. Either way the total bandwidth into the constellation is going to equal total bandwidth out of the constellation [1]; it's just a question of how much of the backbone is in space versus on the ground.
[1] Caching the Netflix library in space or multicasting the top Twitch streamers is presumably a feature for Starlink v3.0.
Reading an article on my news feed about SpaceX needing a longer fairing for the disputed dod contract, how many more starlink pizza boxes could be on one flight with a 50% longer fairing?
Ie, would starlink pay for the longer fairing by reducing the number of launches by 10 out of hundreds?, 100 out of thousands???
Also, does enough S2 fuel remain to do a plane change? The certainly was no need to change planes for the first launch.
Bunch of tradeoffs on how much fuel S1 expends/where it lands, how much fuel S2 has to maneuver, how many pancakes in the stack.
The Starlink-1 mission was already a very hot reentry. They might be able to trade some upper stage margin to recover the booster, but the current design seems to nearly max out F9's payload mass capability to that orbit so a larger fairing probably wouldn't help much on F9.
Elon said they could have gotten few more on the current fairing but at the sacrifice of the first stage. So if they are forced to build a new fairing they could launch them on a recoverable FH. But they are looking at launching Starlink on Starship ASAP. So who knows if they they want to go that route yet. It might keep FH busy for a min. But I imagine they are going to be up saleing FH soon.
Launch costs are cheap. 10 isn't theoretically possible. It's totally possible. ISTM.This assumes that radical plane changes from the satellites themselves is not possible.
Griffin and Musk were together on the trip Musk took to Russia to try to buy an old ICBM where Musk started his idea for SpaceX. Griffin also did the COTS program which saved SpaceX.Space Development Agency releases its first solicitation
by Sandra Erwin — July 4, 2019
The SDA is looking to develop an "agile, responsive next-generation space architecture."
https://spacenews.com/space-development-agency-releases-its-first-solicitation/ (https://spacenews.com/space-development-agency-releases-its-first-solicitation/)
Starlink for SDA
Ha!
Who hear can envision a technical bromance between the architect of Constellation and the architect of Starship?
What more unlikely duo than Griffin and Musk?
Griffin and Musk were together on the trip Musk took to Russia to try to buy an old ICBM where Musk started his idea for SpaceX. Griffin also did the COTS program which saved SpaceX.Space Development Agency releases its first solicitation
by Sandra Erwin — July 4, 2019
The SDA is looking to develop an "agile, responsive next-generation space architecture."
https://spacenews.com/space-development-agency-releases-its-first-solicitation/ (https://spacenews.com/space-development-agency-releases-its-first-solicitation/)
Starlink for SDA
Ha!
Who hear can envision a technical bromance between the architect of Constellation and the architect of Starship?
What more unlikely duo than Griffin and Musk?
Please explain in the area below why an STA is necessary:
This STA is necessary to authorize testing of Ka-band gateway antennas used to route broadband traffic over the Starlink satellite system.
Purpose of Operation
Please explain the purpose of operation: The purpose of the operation is for EMI testing across the Ka-band spectrum. This is a brief test, and EIRP is not expected to surpass 61.6 dBW.
Eric Berger @ScuGuySpace (Ars Technica)
...the Space and Missile Symposium in Northern Alabama is hardly where I'd expect a SpaceX love fest to break out.
Do we have any recent information about if the next batch of Starlink's will have inter-satellite links (ISL)?
Arguably the most important feature of Starlink.
I suspect they'll keep it close until ready... thanks.Do we have any recent information about if the next batch of Starlink's will have inter-satellite links (ISL)?
Arguably the most important feature of Starlink.
From what Elon said at the press conference for the launch of the test satellites, I would not expect ISL anytime soon. One of their fairly recent FCC filings mentioned work on ISL and didn't sound like they were imminent.
Do we have any recent information about if the next batch of Starlink's will have inter-satellite links (ISL)?
Arguably the most important feature of Starlink.
Do we have any recent information about if the next batch of Starlink's will have inter-satellite links (ISL)?
Arguably the most important feature of Starlink.
I thought that was the difference between v0.9 and v1.0. And I see the next launch labeled as v1.0. Doesn't make sense to me to put too many satellites up without inter-satellite communication. I would have thought that Starlink launches would be delayed as long as necessary until inter-satellite links were ready.
Do we have any recent information about if the next batch of Starlink's will have inter-satellite links (ISL)?
Arguably the most important feature of Starlink.
I thought that was the difference between v0.9 and v1.0. And I see the next launch labeled as v1.0. Doesn't make sense to me to put too many satellites up without inter-satellite communication. I would have thought that Starlink launches would be delayed as long as necessary until inter-satellite links were ready.
Nope. v1.0 is supposed to add the Ka-band payload.
Right, but you can't add the links only after there are many satellites up there...Do we have any recent information about if the next batch of Starlink's will have inter-satellite links (ISL)?
Arguably the most important feature of Starlink.
I thought that was the difference between v0.9 and v1.0. And I see the next launch labeled as v1.0. Doesn't make sense to me to put too many satellites up without inter-satellite communication. I would have thought that Starlink launches would be delayed as long as necessary until inter-satellite links were ready.
Nope. v1.0 is supposed to add the Ka-band payload.
Inter-satellite links only make sense when there are enough satellites up there to form a high bandwidth backbone. Until then, it's better to relay the signal to a ground station and use the ordinary internet backbone after the initial hop from a customer.
It's even possible we won't see dedicated inter-satellite communication until v2.0. It's not really that important, since they're probably perfectly capable of communicating with the same radio equipment they use to talk to the ground if needed, such as when talking to an airplane flying across the Pacific.
Do we have any recent information about if the next batch of Starlink's will have inter-satellite links (ISL)?
Arguably the most important feature of Starlink.
I thought that was the difference between v0.9 and v1.0. And I see the next launch labeled as v1.0. Doesn't make sense to me to put too many satellites up without inter-satellite communication. I would have thought that Starlink launches would be delayed as long as necessary until inter-satellite links were ready.
Nope. v1.0 is supposed to add the Ka-band payload.
Inter-satellite links only make sense when there are enough satellites up there to form a high bandwidth backbone. Until then, it's better to relay the signal to a ground station and use the ordinary internet backbone after the initial hop from a customer.
It's even possible we won't see dedicated inter-satellite communication until v2.0. It's not really that important, since they're probably perfectly capable of communicating with the same radio equipment they use to talk to the ground if needed, such as when talking to an airplane flying across the Pacific.
I think the right answer is that they need ISL asap, but will launch what they can since having many in orbit is hugely instructive, and they can take advantage of their very low internal launch costs.
Elon said the initial constellation wouldn't have ISL. I'm not entirely sure how many satellites the initial constellation is, but that would imply at least 400 sats without ISL, and I bet it's a lot more than that.
Elon said the initial constellation won't have intersatellite links. There was nothing ambiguous about it (other than exactly how many satellites he considers to be the initial constellation), and that's the most recent info we have. You can choose to believe otherwise if you want to. Ż\_(ツ)_/ŻYou do answer this question a lot... it probably be a relief when you can say something else...
I think the answer to how big is the initial constellation is embedded in the wording on initial launches of 6 or 6 more launches (7 including the first) for a constellation size of <420. But there was also wording about 12 launches to get to initial operations. So the value here could be 400 or 800. But likely is the 800 value that is being referenced. Which puts no ISL until late 2020 or early 2021. If Starship goes operational in mid late 2021 the ISL being added may occur in the upgrade to V2 for launch on Starship.Elon said the initial constellation won't have intersatellite links. There was nothing ambiguous about it (other than exactly how many satellites he considers to be the initial constellation), and that's the most recent info we have. You can choose to believe otherwise if you want to. Ż\_(ツ)_/ŻYou do answer this question a lot... it probably be a relief when you can say something else...
Anyone hazard a guess as to why ISL, of some sort, hasn't' been integrated on the first batches of SL sats?
My wild guess is that the optics that would be used in the lasers would survive reentry; and SX would like the satellites to be fully disposable upon deorbit.
I've wondered if the sats have to be so high in the sky because of PA antenna angle limitations. Or, if a four antenna system might be able to work with sats at a much lower angle to increase the number they can see in the early days.Starlink goes (from memory) down to 25 degrees from the horizon.
Part of the four antenna system would be higher gain to make up for the distance, and in good weather, the extra distance through the air isn't as bad as you might think. We'd go down to five degrees or less at sea without much signal loss in clear skies.I've wondered if the sats have to be so high in the sky because of PA antenna angle limitations. Or, if a four antenna system might be able to work with sats at a much lower angle to increase the number they can see in the early days.Starlink goes (from memory) down to 25 degrees from the horizon.
Once you start pushing this, you also end up with range issues - 15 degrees over the horizon is quite a lot further away, meaning your performance in all aspects (bitrate/noise margin, cell spot size, ...) goes down.
Also, you start going through way, way more air and weather, which all attenuate the signal - especially in the worst case.
Part of the four antenna system would be higher gain to make up for the distance, and in good weather, the extra distance through the air isn't as bad as you might think. We'd go down to five degrees or less at sea without much signal loss in clear skies.I've wondered if the sats have to be so high in the sky because of PA antenna angle limitations. Or, if a four antenna system might be able to work with sats at a much lower angle to increase the number they can see in the early days.Starlink goes (from memory) down to 25 degrees from the horizon.
Once you start pushing this, you also end up with range issues - 15 degrees over the horizon is quite a lot further away, meaning your performance in all aspects (bitrate/noise margin, cell spot size, ...) goes down.
Also, you start going through way, way more air and weather, which all attenuate the signal - especially in the worst case.
Not having any real antenna specs on either end, it's hard to know how much margin they're putting in.
To maintain suitable coverage during the very early stages of initial deployment,
SpaceX may periodically use a minimum elevation angle as low as 25 degrees for this initial shell.
Then, as further satellites are deployed to populate the remainder of the constellation, SpaceX will
revert to a 40 degree minimum elevation angle for all user and gateway beams.
I assume the ground antenna design will change when that happens. Older ones would still work, but newer ones could be a little smaller or better performing since they wouldn't have to cover 130 degrees of sky.QuoteTo maintain suitable coverage during the very early stages of initial deployment,
SpaceX may periodically use a minimum elevation angle as low as 25 degrees for this initial shell.
Then, as further satellites are deployed to populate the remainder of the constellation, SpaceX will
revert to a 40 degree minimum elevation angle for all user and gateway beams.
I wonder if you'll be able to program in blockages so you won't get assigned a sat that's about to go behind a building. Ku band dishes on ships can already do that for turns, so you can do an orderly handoff instead of just getting the signal cutoff without warning. Of course, their sats aren't zipping across the sky at 14,000 mph.
The first Starlink mission was volume limited.
If they build or buy the new, taller fairing for NSSL missions they could use Starlink to validate the fairing. The fairing will be heavier and more expensive than the standard F9 fairing.
The first Starlink mission was volume limited.
If they build or buy the new, taller fairing for NSSL missions they could use Starlink to validate the fairing. The fairing will be heavier and more expensive than the standard F9 fairing.
Why do you think it was volume limited? I don't think that's true.
The first Starlink mission was volume limited.
If they build or buy the new, taller fairing for NSSL missions they could use Starlink to validate the fairing. The fairing will be heavier and more expensive than the standard F9 fairing.
Why do you think it was volume limited? I don't think that's true.
It was the heaviest payload they've ever launched, and near the limit of what they can lift in reusable config. It was also pretty cramped in the fairing, so it was both mass and volume limited. If they used the bigger fairing to launch more sats, they would need to launch on Falcon Heavy.The first Starlink mission was volume limited.
If they build or buy the new, taller fairing for NSSL missions they could use Starlink to validate the fairing. The fairing will be heavier and more expensive than the standard F9 fairing.
Why do you think it was volume limited? I don't think that's true.
Actually, if anything, we have evidence that it was actually mass limited. I forget if that was privileged information, but certainly in the webcast, you saw the HOT re-entry of the booster. (Thus implying a heavy payload.)
It was the heaviest payload they've ever launched, and near the limit of what they can lift in reusable config. It was also pretty cramped in the fairing, so it was both mass and volume limited. If they used the bigger fairing to launch more sats, they would need to launch on Falcon Heavy.The first Starlink mission was volume limited.
If they build or buy the new, taller fairing for NSSL missions they could use Starlink to validate the fairing. The fairing will be heavier and more expensive than the standard F9 fairing.
Why do you think it was volume limited? I don't think that's true.
Actually, if anything, we have evidence that it was actually mass limited. I forget if that was privileged information, but certainly in the webcast, you saw the HOT re-entry of the booster. (Thus implying a heavy payload.)
I drive by SpaceX Starlink in Redmond from time to time. I noticed that the lot next to them has been cleared and they are throwing up a building or two extra fast. I strongly suspect this is going to be new Starlink manufacturing space.I went to the map link but I wasn't able to tell which direction to look for the clearing you speak of
https://goo.gl/maps/kX3n1vrx8QMnPamx6
I'll get some pics next time I go by. Nothing much to see so far.
I drive by SpaceX Starlink in Redmond from time to time. I noticed that the lot next to them has been cleared and they are throwing up a building or two extra fast. I strongly suspect this is going to be new Starlink manufacturing space.
https://goo.gl/maps/kX3n1vrx8QMnPamx6
I'll get some pics next time I go by. Nothing much to see so far.
I drive by SpaceX Starlink in Redmond from time to time. I noticed that the lot next to them has been cleared and they are throwing up a building or two extra fast. I strongly suspect this is going to be new Starlink manufacturing space.I went to the map link but I wasn't able to tell which direction to look for the clearing you speak of
https://goo.gl/maps/kX3n1vrx8QMnPamx6
I'll get some pics next time I go by. Nothing much to see so far.
I drive by SpaceX Starlink in Redmond from time to time. I noticed that the lot next to them has been cleared and they are throwing up a building or two extra fast. I strongly suspect this is going to be new Starlink manufacturing space.I went to the map link but I wasn't able to tell which direction to look for the clearing you speak of
https://goo.gl/maps/kX3n1vrx8QMnPamx6
I'll get some pics next time I go by. Nothing much to see so far.
I agree with the ambiguity absent a note from the locals. I tend to assume it's the "Island of Trees" across the road from the existing SpaceX location but the clearing to the ENE makes it unclear.
I drive by SpaceX Starlink in Redmond from time to time. I noticed that the lot next to them has been cleared and they are throwing up a building or two extra fast. I strongly suspect this is going to be new Starlink manufacturing space.I went to the map link but I wasn't able to tell which direction to look for the clearing you speak of
https://goo.gl/maps/kX3n1vrx8QMnPamx6
I'll get some pics next time I go by. Nothing much to see so far.
I agree with the ambiguity absent a note from the locals. I tend to assume it's the "Island of Trees" across the road from the existing SpaceX location but the clearing to the ENE makes it unclear.
Seem obvious to me. When you first click on the map link you are zoomed in to the "island of trees". What could be clearer. As Google maps are rarely so recent as to be just days old, cleared areas outside of the area in question likely pre-date this observation by Kragrathea.
Yes the sat maps from google are usually 'out of date' (1st world problems for sure) a trick I use (provided a public road is available) is to 'drive around' the area using the google street view cams... they are MUCH more 'up to date'... then again sometimes not but I just checked and from the street view and no such luck photos are all showing the trees up / no construction.
And by the way, have we anywhere focused on the benefits that camera bearing Starlink satellites could enable?
Yes, that entire area of trees next to Marketplace Dr has been cleared.
SpaceX also has the 2 unmarked buildings on the right side of the screen in that map shot. And the parking lot on the other side of Marketplace is SpaceX only. That's part of why I think it is SpaceX they are clearing the lot for. Their employees have been crossing it to park.
And by the way, have we anywhere focused on the benefits that camera bearing Starlink satellites could enable?
What resolution are you looking to get, and would the equipment to get that resolution easily fit into the current form of the satellites?
And by the way, have we anywhere focused on the benefits that camera bearing Starlink satellites could enable?
What resolution are you looking to get, and would the equipment to get that resolution easily fit into the current form of the satellites?
I really don't know the answer to that question, instead, I would take a different approach. I would ask, "What size camera equipment could they fit on a Starlink satellite and what benefit could be derived from that real-time Earth observation capability?"
I expect to see a steep ramp up when the design changes less. I expect this next launch is still going to be working bugs out and testing things. But there's some merit in ramping up just to ramp up, for the learning, even if what you're making isn't quite right. I bet they are well past 1 a day now. End state I think the rate is going to be more like one every 3.5 hours (2500 a year is 6.8ish a day) if you are producing 24/7 .. or one every 40 minutes or so if you are assuming 5 day / 8 hours a day with some time off for holidays...
I expect to see a steep ramp up when the design changes less. I expect this next launch is still going to be working bugs out and testing things. But there's some merit in ramping up just to ramp up, for the learning, even if what you're making isn't quite right. I bet they are well past 1 a day now. End state I think the rate is going to be more like one every 3.5 hours (2500 a year is 6.8ish a day) if you are producing 24/7 .. or one every 40 minutes or so if you are assuming 5 day / 8 hours a day with some time off for holidays...
They seem to be ramping up where they are now. I suspect moving would be highly disruptive. The distance from the factory for something that fits within a standard semi trailer envelope (cube and weight) isn't that big a deal, I don't think. yes it adds lag but... not insurmountably so.I expect to see a steep ramp up when the design changes less. I expect this next launch is still going to be working bugs out and testing things. But there's some merit in ramping up just to ramp up, for the learning, even if what you're making isn't quite right. I bet they are well past 1 a day now. End state I think the rate is going to be more like one every 3.5 hours (2500 a year is 6.8ish a day) if you are producing 24/7 .. or one every 40 minutes or so if you are assuming 5 day / 8 hours a day with some time off for holidays...
At that rate you almost want the production line at the Cape and feeding into the F9 processing facility.
Anyone know how much of the manufacturing for the current Starlink satellite can be automated? Musk have Tesla Grohmann automation to call upon for setting up automated production lines.
Following @SpaceX's request from 16 April for 6 Ku band gateways for #Starlink on 15 Aug the firm has filed 2 additional license requests with the @FCC for two Ka band gateways located at: 📡Conrad, MT (48.203306,-111.945278), dual band (Ku/Ka) 📡Loring, ME (46.914917,-67.919528)
SpaceX filed another extension request (http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATSTA2019081500075&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number) for their Ku-band earth stations since they are still operating under STA.
SpaceX also filed their first couple applications for Ka-band gateways (it says they will have at least five). They will have eight 1.5m antennas at each site. The first two filed are for Conrad, Montana (SES-LIC-INTR2019-03001 (http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESLICINTR201903001&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number)) and Loring, Maine (SES-LIC-INTR2019-03002 (http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESLICINTR201903002&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number)). The Coordination Report file has info on the antennas.
The mid-incination opportunities I suppose are starlink launches...
https://www.spacex.com/smallsat
edit:
It spells it out:QuoteSpaceX's Starlink missions will also provide monthly launch opportunities starting in 2020.
In other news, 9 planned Starlink launches next year, monthly cadence with presumably final sats starting in April.The mid-incination opportunities I suppose are starlink launches...
https://www.spacex.com/smallsat
edit:
It spells it out:QuoteSpaceX's Starlink missions will also provide monthly launch opportunities starting in 2020.
With 60 sats per launch, that would give 1320 in orbit by end of 2021.
60 is max Starlink sats per launch, could be less.
Rideshares should be ESPA ring at bottom of stack (will need to be a strong ring).
60 is max Starlink sats per launch, could be less.
Rideshares should be ESPA ring at bottom of stack (will need to be a strong ring).
You could convert Starlink spacecraft to cubesat dispenser. And stacked as many as customer demand need along with the regular Starlink spacecrafts. Converted Starlink spacecraft have the bonus features of propulsion, attitude control and solar power generation.
60 is max Starlink sats per launch, could be less.
Rideshares should be ESPA ring at bottom of stack (will need to be a strong ring).
You could convert Starlink spacecraft to cubesat dispenser. And stacked as many as customer demand need along with the regular Starlink spacecrafts. Converted Starlink spacecraft have the bonus features of propulsion, attitude control and solar power generation.
Maybe they could convert a Starlink sat to a dispenser, but they're not going to yet. They were explicit about requiring an ESPA connector in the rideshare announcement, and suggested that you could use it to send your own cubesat deployer.
60 is max Starlink sats per launch, could be less.
Rideshares should be ESPA ring at bottom of stack (will need to be a strong ring).
60 is max Starlink sats per launch, could be less.
Rideshares should be ESPA ring at bottom of stack (will need to be a strong ring).
An ESPA ring probably won't fit under a Starlink stack. The Starlink payload attach fitting does not appear to have a standard 1575mm bolted interface, but rather a square platform for the Starlink stack.
Attached image from this post:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48135.msg1945139#msg1945139
60 is max Starlink sats per launch, could be less.
Rideshares should be ESPA ring at bottom of stack (will need to be a strong ring).
An ESPA ring probably won't fit under a Starlink stack. The Starlink payload attach fitting does not appear to have a standard 1575mm bolted interface, but rather a square platform for the Starlink stack.
Attached image from this post:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48135.msg1945139#msg1945139
Nothing would fit in that configuration. I'm assuming they've redesigned the adapter to incorporate a ring below the square platform, rather than redesigning the Starlink sats to accomodate secondaries on top.
For the first time ever, ESA has performed a 'collision avoidance manoeuvre' to protect one of its satellites from colliding with a 'mega constellation'
#SpaceTraffic
This morning, @ESA's #Aeolus Earth observation satellite fired its thrusters, moving it off a collision course with a @SpaceX satellite in their #Starlink constellation
Experts in our #SpaceDebris team calculated the risk of collision between these two active satellites, determining the safest option for #Aeolus would be to increase its altitude and pass over the @SpaceX satellite
#CollisionAvoidance
The manoeuvre took place about 1/2 an orbit before the potential collision. Not long after the collision was expected, #Aeolus called home as usual to send back its science data – proving the manoeuvre was successful and a collision was indeed avoided
It is very rare to perform collision avoidance manoeuvres with active satellites. The vast majority of ESA avoidance manoeuvres are the result of dead satellites or fragments from previous collisions
#SpaceDebris
In 2018, ESA performed 28 #collisionavoidance manoeuvres across its fleet. See for example a 2018 manoeuvre by @ESA_Cryosat: twitter.com/esaoperations/…
These avoidance manoeuvres take a lot of time to prepare - from determining the future orbital positions of all functioning spacecraft, to calculating the risk of collision and potential outcomes of different actions
📸Inside ESA's #SpaceDebris Office
As the number of satellites in orbit increases, due to 'mega constellations' such as #Starlink comprising hundreds or even thousands of satellites, today's 'manual' collision avoidance process will become impossible...
According to the latest @18SPCS orbital elements, AEOLUS would have passed within 10 km from a Starlink satellite (object 44278/2019-029AV) at 11:02:42UTC today. The relative velocity was 14.4 km/s. A collision would've been messy.
Hmmm. We move our satellites on average once a week and don't put out a press release to say who we maneuvered around...
Quote from: Matt DeschHmmm. We move our satellites on average once a week and don't put out a press release to say who we maneuvered around...
https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/1168582141128650753
Quote from: Matt DeschHmmm. We move our satellites on average once a week and don't put out a press release to say who we maneuvered around...
https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/1168582141128650753
And thank you Matt Desch!!
I was about to post that ESA had to make something special about maneuvering around a "Mega-constellation" when adjusting orbits to miss some satellite or the other is pretty routine.
It appears my last post got deleted for triggering someone...No doubt there is more to the story. At what probability is it reasonable not to perform the maneuver? 1:100,000? (knowing that as the time of the potential interference gets closer the probability will change but it also will take more propellant to successfully avoid...)
SpaceX has displayed that they are willing to work with most organizations when issues appear.
There is probably a little more to the story between SpaceX and ESA, particularly when a payload orbital change is presented in this manner..
This morning, @ESA's #Aeolus Earth observation satellite fired its thrusters, moving it off a collision course with a
@SpaceX satellite in their #Starlink constellation..
https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/1168534065118679042
Collision Course? LOL. What melodrama. While I suppose you cannot discount they were actually on a collision course, the infinitely greater liklihood is that ESA Public Affairs just announced to the world they don't even understand the most basic physics of their industry.A chance of a collision isn't the same as a guaranteed collision but prudence suggests diversion. Apparently the ESA standard is 1:10,000 ... is that a commonly accepted standard or just their desire?
Something doesn't add up.Collision Course? LOL. What melodrama. While I suppose you cannot discount they were actually on a collision course, the infinitely greater liklihood is that ESA Public Affairs just announced to the world they don't even understand the most basic physics of their industry.A chance of a collision isn't the same as a guaranteed collision but prudence suggests diversion. Apparently the ESA standard is 1:10,000 ... is that a commonly accepted standard or just their desire?
Which thread is better for this? This is a general Starlink thread. But the bird involved was launched by the mission in the mission thread. If you want to talk general Starlink, here, I guess. Else there.
If you want to talk about the overall industry approach then consider this one...
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48954
SpaceNews has posted an article, most of which has been covered in the NSF mission thread.
Of note...
"However, the SOCRATES data predicted a very low probability of collision — less than one in one million — which ordinarily would be far below the threshold for an avoidance maneuver."
from
https://spacenews.com/esa-spacecraft-dodges-potential-collision-with-starlink-satellite/ (https://spacenews.com/esa-spacecraft-dodges-potential-collision-with-starlink-satellite/)
Hopefully we will have more data over the next few days...then get back to business.
twitter.com/astro_jonny/status/1168825704915656704QuoteI've got an update from ESA on the 1 in a million vs 1 in 1,000 collision risk analysis for #Starlink 44 and #Aeolus.
ESA says the orbit information they get from USSTRATCOM is ten times better than SOCRATES. Coupled with their own orbital data, they arrived at 1 in 1,000. (1/2)
https://twitter.com/astro_jonny/status/1168825707209928705Quote"Operators like ESA and SpaceX can determine the orbit of their own satellites with quite some precision.
"The results we obtained with the more accurate data (1:1000) is therefore much more credible." (2/2)
It is absolutely nonsense and unprofessional that ESA would come out and do this. Shame on ESA. They're doing political grandstanding purely to attack. This is not something NASA would ever do. There's no reasonable justification for doing what ESA did.
Here’s ESA’s latest:twitter.com/astro_jonny/status/1168825704915656704QuoteI've got an update from ESA on the 1 in a million vs 1 in 1,000 collision risk analysis for #Starlink 44 and #Aeolus.
ESA says the orbit information they get from USSTRATCOM is ten times better than SOCRATES. Coupled with their own orbital data, they arrived at 1 in 1,000. (1/2)
Here’s ESA’s latest:twitter.com/astro_jonny/status/1168825704915656704QuoteI've got an update from ESA on the 1 in a million vs 1 in 1,000 collision risk analysis for #Starlink 44 and #Aeolus.
ESA says the orbit information they get from USSTRATCOM is ten times better than SOCRATES. Coupled with their own orbital data, they arrived at 1 in 1,000. (1/2)
Interesting, this seems to imply that the public TLE released by 18SPCS is not the most accurate version, they have a secret dataset more accurate than the public version? Anyone can confirm this?
TS Kelso (of CelesTrak) has some concerns about the tracking of the constellation:
https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1141906661499711491
Hi SWGlassPit, Can you possibly explain this for me?
I would not put too much into this tweet.
18 SPCS is tasked with monitoring and avoidance, among many other duties.
This briefing, pdf will give insight...
https://advancedssa.com/assets/img/workshop/presentations/JSpOC-18SPCS_CONOPS.pdf (https://advancedssa.com/assets/img/workshop/presentations/JSpOC-18SPCS_CONOPS.pdf)
18 SPCS has many resources available to them and are in possession of more detailed data than just TLE's.
If there is an issue, they are able to communicate directly with the payload owner..
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1335482/18th-space-control-squadron-keeping-watch-up-above/ (https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1335482/18th-space-control-squadron-keeping-watch-up-above/)
The 18th Space Control Squadron maintains the space catalog.
https://www.afspc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1459151/18th-spcs-stands-guard-over-space/ (https://www.afspc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1459151/18th-spcs-stands-guard-over-space/)
The latest info is not neccessarily in the catalog.
I am sure 18 SPCS and SpaceX are more than aware of the entire situation.
The men and women of 18SPCS do an outstanding job, a thankless job at times. One must be careful to not "cry wolf" too often...
just my 2 cents.
Something doesn't add up.Collision Course? LOL. What melodrama. While I suppose you cannot discount they were actually on a collision course, the infinitely greater liklihood is that ESA Public Affairs just announced to the world they don't even understand the most basic physics of their industry.A chance of a collision isn't the same as a guaranteed collision but prudence suggests diversion. Apparently the ESA standard is 1:10,000 ... is that a commonly accepted standard or just their desire?
Which thread is better for this? This is a general Starlink thread. But the bird involved was launched by the mission in the mission thread. If you want to talk general Starlink, here, I guess. Else there.
If you want to talk about the overall industry approach then consider this one...
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48954
If the noninal separation was 10 km (at closest approach) and suppose contact happens at 10 m, if this was straight head-on and if the uncertainties were uniform, the odds would be 1:1,000,000.
But the positional uncertainties are not uniform, they're concentrated on the nominal position, so it's far less probable than even that.
Not being heads-on affects the odds also, but ot just doesn't seem close to 1:1000
This is very sloppy, but it seems orders of magnitudes off. What's missing?
This is not something NASA would ever do.Citation needed. There certainly are elements within NASA (remember, not monolithic, nor is ESA) that have grandstanded about various things in the past. Let's not politicise this any more than necessary.
Here’s ESA’s latest:twitter.com/astro_jonny/status/1168825704915656704QuoteI've got an update from ESA on the 1 in a million vs 1 in 1,000 collision risk analysis for #Starlink 44 and #Aeolus.
ESA says the orbit information they get from USSTRATCOM is ten times better than SOCRATES. Coupled with their own orbital data, they arrived at 1 in 1,000. (1/2)
Interesting, this seems to imply that the public TLE released by 18SPCS is not the most accurate version, they have a secret dataset more accurate than the public version? Anyone can confirm this?
Probably not secret so much as not updated as often. This has come up before in regards to Starlink:
The SpaceNews article (https://spacenews.com/esa-spacecraft-dodges-potential-collision-with-starlink-satellite/) was updated to say ESA received notification 5 days before the close approach, presumably SpaceNews run SOCRATES after the ESA tweet which is yesterday, so the data used by SpaceNews' SOCRATES run should be only 2 days before the close approach at maximal, which is 3 days after the 5 days notification.
The SpaceNews article (https://spacenews.com/esa-spacecraft-dodges-potential-collision-with-starlink-satellite/) was updated to say ESA received notification 5 days before the close approach, presumably SpaceNews run SOCRATES after the ESA tweet which is yesterday, so the data used by SpaceNews' SOCRATES run should be only 2 days before the close approach at maximal, which is 3 days after the 5 days notification.
Did you really read that article? Maybe you should read it again. It doesn't say anything about Space News running SOCRATES. It does say that ESA monitored the situation from the time they were informed of it and then made the decision to adjust the orbit the day before the potential conjuction. The idea that Space News somehow ran a better analysis of the situation than ESA is ridiculous.
According to a list of conjunctions called the Satellite Orbital Conjunction Reports Assessing Threatening Encounters in Space (SOCRATES), maintained by the Center for Space Standards & Innovation, Aeolus was predicted to have a close approach shortly after 7 a.m. Eastern Sept. 2 with a satellite identified as “Starlink AV” for its international designation, 2019-029AV. The two satellites were predicted to come within about four kilometers of each other, at a relative velocity of 14.4 kilometers per second. However, the SOCRATES data predicted a very low probability of collision — less than one in one million — which ordinarily would be far below the threshold for an avoidance maneuver.
Well, even if the best data ESA had exceeded their threshold for avoidance, why didn't they just... avoid?That's exactly what they did.
Well, even if the best data ESA had exceeded their threshold for avoidance, why didn't they just... avoid?That's exactly what they did.
Indeed. ESA apparently isn't making their best data public in real-time.The SpaceNews article (https://spacenews.com/esa-spacecraft-dodges-potential-collision-with-starlink-satellite/) was updated to say ESA received notification 5 days before the close approach, presumably SpaceNews run SOCRATES after the ESA tweet which is yesterday, so the data used by SpaceNews' SOCRATES run should be only 2 days before the close approach at maximal, which is 3 days after the 5 days notification.
Did you really read that article? Maybe you should read it again. It doesn't say anything about Space News running SOCRATES. It does say that ESA monitored the situation from the time they were informed of it and then made the decision to adjust the orbit the day before the potential conjuction. The idea that Space News somehow ran a better analysis of the situation than ESA is ridiculous.
Of course I read it, twice, once before they did the update, once after they did the update. If SpaceNews didn't run SOCRATES, where did this comes from?QuoteAccording to a list of conjunctions called the Satellite Orbital Conjunction Reports Assessing Threatening Encounters in Space (SOCRATES), maintained by the Center for Space Standards & Innovation, Aeolus was predicted to have a close approach shortly after 7 a.m. Eastern Sept. 2 with a satellite identified as “Starlink AV” for its international designation, 2019-029AV. The two satellites were predicted to come within about four kilometers of each other, at a relative velocity of 14.4 kilometers per second. However, the SOCRATES data predicted a very low probability of collision — less than one in one million — which ordinarily would be far below the threshold for an avoidance maneuver.
And where did I suggest SpaceNews' analysis is better? What I'd like to know is the cause of the different results, is it because 18SPCS public TLE data is not accurate? Or something else.
And if public TLE data is not accurate, is it because 18SPCS is holding back more accurate dataset, or is it because ESA is not sharing up to date orbital data with 18SPCS? Both are concerning, especially given a few pages back some people are concerned the public TLE age is too old, but if 18SPCS has a secret dataset which it only shares with operators, then the age of the public TLE doesn't matter. It's all tied together, you can't argue both ways.
Indeed. ESA apparently isn't making their best data public in real-time.The SpaceNews article (https://spacenews.com/esa-spacecraft-dodges-potential-collision-with-starlink-satellite/) was updated to say ESA received notification 5 days before the close approach, presumably SpaceNews run SOCRATES after the ESA tweet which is yesterday, so the data used by SpaceNews' SOCRATES run should be only 2 days before the close approach at maximal, which is 3 days after the 5 days notification.
Did you really read that article? Maybe you should read it again. It doesn't say anything about Space News running SOCRATES. It does say that ESA monitored the situation from the time they were informed of it and then made the decision to adjust the orbit the day before the potential conjuction. The idea that Space News somehow ran a better analysis of the situation than ESA is ridiculous.
Of course I read it, twice, once before they did the update, once after they did the update. If SpaceNews didn't run SOCRATES, where did this comes from?QuoteAccording to a list of conjunctions called the Satellite Orbital Conjunction Reports Assessing Threatening Encounters in Space (SOCRATES), maintained by the Center for Space Standards & Innovation, Aeolus was predicted to have a close approach shortly after 7 a.m. Eastern Sept. 2 with a satellite identified as “Starlink AV” for its international designation, 2019-029AV. The two satellites were predicted to come within about four kilometers of each other, at a relative velocity of 14.4 kilometers per second. However, the SOCRATES data predicted a very low probability of collision — less than one in one million — which ordinarily would be far below the threshold for an avoidance maneuver.
And where did I suggest SpaceNews' analysis is better? What I'd like to know is the cause of the different results, is it because 18SPCS public TLE data is not accurate? Or something else.
And if public TLE data is not accurate, is it because 18SPCS is holding back more accurate dataset, or is it because ESA is not sharing up to date orbital data with 18SPCS? Both are concerning, especially given a few pages back some people are concerned the public TLE age is too old, but if 18SPCS has a secret dataset which it only shares with operators, then the age of the public TLE doesn't matter. It's all tied together, you can't argue both ways.
Actually, I think all operators should have to share their best position data in real-time. With regulators. And there should be actual regulations regarding how this is all de-conflicted. ESA (who is an investor in OneWeb and whose ArianeSpace is providing many satellites and launches for) making a public relations ploy (even though their own best data about satellite position is not public!) about this is not super helpful. OneWeb using concern-trolling ("Responsible Space") as a marketing platform is also not helpful. There needs to be a public database of this stuff to the highest possible precision available in real-time, and it needs to be deconflicted using an ATC-like entity.
...
Who is ATC?
...
...
Who is ATC?
...
That would most likely be Air Traffic Control
Well first they demanded that SpaceX move, then insinuated that somehow SpaceX should have moved but refused.Well, even if the best data ESA had exceeded their threshold for avoidance, why didn't they just... avoid?That's exactly what they did.
Actually, I think all operators should have to share their best position data in real-time. With regulators. And there should be actual regulations regarding how this is all de-conflicted. ESA (who is an investor in OneWeb and whose ArianeSpace is providing many satellites and launches for) making a public relations ploy (even though their own best data about satellite position is not public!) about this is not super helpful. OneWeb using concern-trolling ("Responsible Space") as a marketing platform is also not helpful. There needs to be a public database of this stuff to the highest possible precision available in real-time, and it needs to be deconflicted using an ATC-like entity.
Well first they demanded that SpaceX move, then insinuated that somehow SpaceX should have moved but refused.Well, even if the best data ESA had exceeded their threshold for avoidance, why didn't they just... avoid?That's exactly what they did.
Somewhere in the middle, they moved as they should have.
Not the same.
There's no such rule. Where did this information come from?Well first they demanded that SpaceX move, then insinuated that somehow SpaceX should have moved but refused.Well, even if the best data ESA had exceeded their threshold for avoidance, why didn't they just... avoid?That's exactly what they did.
Somewhere in the middle, they moved as they should have.
Not the same.
Shouldn't SpaceX have moved though ?
I read somewhere that they were on this orbit before Starlink even launched. So clearly SpaceX's satellite is the one that came on a collision course.
Why should ESA's satellite be the one moving ?
Also ESA's satellite is a very expensive satellite whose life span is reduced by this kind of maneuvers. SpaceX's satellite is a cheap one which is performing experiments about deorbiting, so it doesn't care so much about conserving propellant.
So again, why should ESA's satellite be the one performing the maneuver ?
Another point that's concerning to me is : If it had been the NASA asking SpaceX to move their satellite, would their reaction have been the same ? I personally don't think so.
If you read Forbe's interview of an ESA person (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/02/spacex-refused-to-move-a-starlink-satellite-at-risk-of-collision-with-a-european-satellite/#2d00de0d1f62 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/02/spacex-refused-to-move-a-starlink-satellite-at-risk-of-collision-with-a-european-satellite/#2d00de0d1f62)), that's actually the whole point they are trying to make.
They didn't say SpaceX was wrong (they actually said nobody was wrong).
They didn't say SpaceX should have moved (even though they asked them to do so).
“Based on this we informed SpaceX, who replied and said that they do not plan to take action,” says Krag, who said SpaceX informed them via email
“We have informed SpaceX and they acknowledged,” he said. “Over the days the collision probability exceeded the decision threshold and we started the maneuver preparation and shared our plans with SpaceX. The decision to maneuver was then made the day before.”
Just to quickly clarify again
@FastCompany
et al, ESA did NOT ask SpaceX to move. SpaceX simply said they would not move their #Starlink satellite, necessitating an evasive manoeuvre from #Aeolus.
About the second argument, it makes no sense. BMWs don't get right away over Fiats.Well first they demanded that SpaceX move, then insinuated that somehow SpaceX should have moved but refused.Well, even if the best data ESA had exceeded their threshold for avoidance, why didn't they just... avoid?That's exactly what they did.
Somewhere in the middle, they moved as they should have.
Not the same.
Shouldn't SpaceX have moved though ?
I read somewhere that they were on this orbit before Starlink even launched. So clearly SpaceX's satellite is the one that came on a collision course.
Why should ESA's satellite be the one moving ?
Also ESA's satellite is a very expensive satellite whose life span is reduced by this kind of maneuvers. SpaceX's satellite is a cheap one which is performing experiments about deorbiting, so it doesn't care so much about conserving propellant.
So again, why should ESA's satellite be the one performing the maneuver ?
Another point that's concerning to me is : If it had been the NASA asking SpaceX to move their satellite, would their reaction have been the same ? I personally don't think so.
There's no such rule. Where did this information come from?Well first they demanded that SpaceX move, then insinuated that somehow SpaceX should have moved but refused.Well, even if the best data ESA had exceeded their threshold for avoidance, why didn't they just... avoid?That's exactly what they did.
Somewhere in the middle, they moved as they should have.
Not the same.
Shouldn't SpaceX have moved though ?
I read somewhere that they were on this orbit before Starlink even launched. So clearly SpaceX's satellite is the one that came on a collision course.
Why should ESA's satellite be the one moving ?
Also ESA's satellite is a very expensive satellite whose life span is reduced by this kind of maneuvers. SpaceX's satellite is a cheap one which is performing experiments about deorbiting, so it doesn't care so much about conserving propellant.
So again, why should ESA's satellite be the one performing the maneuver ?
Another point that's concerning to me is : If it had been the NASA asking SpaceX to move their satellite, would their reaction have been the same ? I personally don't think so.
There's no such rule. Where did this information come from?
About the second argument, it makes no sense. BMWs don't get right away over Fiats.
As for the Euro angle, ESA virtually guaranteed making this a political issue. What they should have done was quietly try to establish some regulations on this matter, not start a PR war.
No where in the article said SpaceX was asked to move.
Edit: And the author of the forbes article just clarified this
SpaceX, in a new statement, says they were aware of the potential Aeolus/Starlink collision, but at first the probability was low. When the probability increased, “a bug in our on-call paging system prevented the Starlink operator from seeing the follow on correspondence.”
SpaceX said had they been aware of the increased probability risk, “we would have coordinated with ESA to determine best approach with their continuing with their maneuver or our performing a maneuver.”]SpaceX said had they been aware of the increased probability risk, “we would have coordinated with ESA to determine best approach with their continuing with their maneuver or our performing a maneuver.”
So the main problem I see is a lot of miscommunication and a lack of cooperation between SpaceX and ESA.
If SpaceX wants Starlink to be successfull they should really start to consider the concerns of the other players. There will be new rules in the future, just because the amount of new satellites is too big. And if you want these regulations be in favour of your plans, you need the others to trust you.
So it should be in SpaceX own interest to have a better relation with ESA (and the scientific community in general) in the future.
So the main problem I see is a lot of miscommunication and a lack of cooperation between SpaceX and ESA.This is not the spin I'd give this. There seems to be a conflict between ESA saying "SpaceX never communicates with us" and SpaceX saying "we exchanged emails about this and jointly decided no action was warranted, and we're sorry we botched comms when there was an update to the probability" (both paraphrases)
If SpaceX wants Starlink to be successfull they should really start to consider the concerns of the other players. There will be new rules in the future, just because the amount of new satellites is too big. And if you want these regulations be in favour of your plans, you need the others to trust you.
So it should be in SpaceX own interest to have a better relation with ESA (and the scientific community in general) in the future.
So the main problem I see is a lot of miscommunication and a lack of cooperation between SpaceX and ESA.
If SpaceX wants Starlink to be successfull they should really start to consider the concerns of the other players. There will be new rules in the future, just because the amount of new satellites is too big. And if you want these regulations be in favour of your plans, you need the others to trust you.
So it should be in SpaceX own interest to have a better relation with ESA (and the scientific community in general) in the future.
Zuvor hatte die ESA SpaceX kontaktiert. Zusammen wurde entschieden, dass "Aeolus" ausweicht. Die Absprache sei wichtig, sagte Holger Krag, der Leiter des Esa-Büros für Raumfahrtrückstände. Ansonsten könnte es im schlimmsten Fall sein, dass beide Satelliten in die gleiche Richtung ausweichen und so weiter aufeinanderzusteuern. Die Absprache mit SpaceX funktionierte laut dem Experten gut. Das sei nicht immer so: "Es gibt Satellitenbetreiber, die reagieren gar nicht, wenn man sie anschreibt."
ESA went to twitter long after the maneuver had been performed. And they did have a direct dialog with SpaceX, per their statements to Forbes and SpaceNews.So the main problem I see is a lot of miscommunication and a lack of cooperation between SpaceX and ESA.
If SpaceX wants Starlink to be successfull they should really start to consider the concerns of the other players. There will be new rules in the future, just because the amount of new satellites is too big. And if you want these regulations be in favour of your plans, you need the others to trust you.
So it should be in SpaceX own interest to have a better relation with ESA (and the scientific community in general) in the future.
In this instance I believe ESA could have handled this in a more professional manner. Twitter is not the venue to use for a general avoidance maneuver or to use this situation for other means without direct dialogue with those in a conflicting situation.
oops...been ninja'd
The SpaceNews article (https://spacenews.com/esa-spacecraft-dodges-potential-collision-with-starlink-satellite/) was updated to say ESA received notification 5 days before the close approach, presumably SpaceNews run SOCRATES after the ESA tweet which is yesterday, so the data used by SpaceNews' SOCRATES run should be only 2 days before the close approach at maximal, which is 3 days after the 5 days notification.
Did you really read that article? Maybe you should read it again. It doesn't say anything about Space News running SOCRATES. It does say that ESA monitored the situation from the time they were informed of it and then made the decision to adjust the orbit the day before the potential conjuction. The idea that Space News somehow ran a better analysis of the situation than ESA is ridiculous.
Of course I read it, twice, once before they did the update, once after they did the update. If SpaceNews didn't run SOCRATES, where did this comes from?QuoteAccording to a list of conjunctions called the Satellite Orbital Conjunction Reports Assessing Threatening Encounters in Space (SOCRATES), maintained by the Center for Space Standards & Innovation, Aeolus was predicted to have a close approach shortly after 7 a.m. Eastern Sept. 2 with a satellite identified as “Starlink AV” for its international designation, 2019-029AV. The two satellites were predicted to come within about four kilometers of each other, at a relative velocity of 14.4 kilometers per second. However, the SOCRATES data predicted a very low probability of collision — less than one in one million — which ordinarily would be far below the threshold for an avoidance maneuver.
And where did I suggest SpaceNews' analysis is better? What I'd like to know is the cause of the different results, is it because 18SPCS public TLE data is not accurate? Or something else.
And if public TLE data is not accurate, is it because 18SPCS is holding back more accurate dataset, or is it because ESA is not sharing up to date orbital data with 18SPCS? Both are concerning, especially given a few pages back some people are concerned the public TLE age is too old, but if 18SPCS has a secret dataset which it only shares with operators, then the age of the public TLE doesn't matter. It's all tied together, you can't argue both ways.
ESA went to twitter long after the maneuver had been performed. And they did have a direct dialog with SpaceX, per their statements to Forbes and SpaceNews.So the main problem I see is a lot of miscommunication and a lack of cooperation between SpaceX and ESA.
If SpaceX wants Starlink to be successfull they should really start to consider the concerns of the other players. There will be new rules in the future, just because the amount of new satellites is too big. And if you want these regulations be in favour of your plans, you need the others to trust you.
So it should be in SpaceX own interest to have a better relation with ESA (and the scientific community in general) in the future.
In this instance I believe ESA could have handled this in a more professional manner. Twitter is not the venue to use for a general avoidance maneuver or to use this situation for other means without direct dialogue with those in a conflicting situation.
oops...been ninja'd
Interview on "space safety" with ESA expert Holger Krag was just published by German quality daily (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung):Did he discuss that ESA is seeking funding for just such a system?
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/weltraum/esa-satellit-muss-musks-starlink-satellit-ausweichen-16366503.html (https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/weltraum/esa-satellit-muss-musks-starlink-satellit-ausweichen-16366503.html)
IMHO, his statements are balanced and reasonable. No bashing that I can perceive. He argues that new procedures -- largely automated and autonomous -- need to be discussed and agreed upon, because such incidents are bound to become increasingly frequent.
Twitter was used to report the news after the event.So the main problem I see is a lot of miscommunication and a lack of cooperation between SpaceX and ESA.
If SpaceX wants Starlink to be successfull they should really start to consider the concerns of the other players. There will be new rules in the future, just because the amount of new satellites is too big. And if you want these regulations be in favour of your plans, you need the others to trust you.
So it should be in SpaceX own interest to have a better relation with ESA (and the scientific community in general) in the future.
In this instance I believe ESA could have handled this in a more professional manner. Twitter is not the venue to use for a general avoidance maneuver or to use this situation for other means without direct dialogue with those in a conflicting situation.
oops...been ninja'd
A SpaceX spokesperson said a bug in its on-call operating system prevented the team from seeing that the risk of a collision with the ESA craft may have increased.
“Had the Starlink operator seen the correspondence, we would have coordinated with ESA to determine best approach with their continuing with their manoeuvre or our performing a manoeuvre,” the spokesperson said.
By the way, who is responsible for warning SpaceX about collision threats? Is this the USAF? Do they provide this as a service to all satellite operators?
No he wasn't asked and it wasn't relevant.Interview on "space safety" with ESA expert Holger Krag was just published by German quality daily (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung):Did he discuss that ESA is seeking funding for just such a system?
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/weltraum/esa-satellit-muss-musks-starlink-satellit-ausweichen-16366503.html (https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/weltraum/esa-satellit-muss-musks-starlink-satellit-ausweichen-16366503.html)
IMHO, his statements are balanced and reasonable. No bashing that I can perceive. He argues that new procedures -- largely automated and autonomous -- need to be discussed and agreed upon, because such incidents are bound to become increasingly frequent.
I think that in the next two to three years we should have technical solutions that make our work much easier. Communication protocols, automatic decisions based on machine learning. Perhaps also the possibility of reaching the satellite at any time and not just when it is flying over a ground station, so that we can react more flexibly. Our proposal is to demonstrate by 2023 that a satellite makes a decision after a collision warning, votes and then evades autonomously. Autonomous does not mean that it does everything on board, which of course requires contact with the ground. But at the moment we are not in a position to do so. Many experts are paid to stay awake around the clock and assess the situation. And that is no longer manageable when we soon have five times the number of satellites.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
Twitter was used to report the news after the event.So the main problem I see is a lot of miscommunication and a lack of cooperation between SpaceX and ESA.
If SpaceX wants Starlink to be successfull they should really start to consider the concerns of the other players. There will be new rules in the future, just because the amount of new satellites is too big. And if you want these regulations be in favour of your plans, you need the others to trust you.
So it should be in SpaceX own interest to have a better relation with ESA (and the scientific community in general) in the future.
In this instance I believe ESA could have handled this in a more professional manner. Twitter is not the venue to use for a general avoidance maneuver or to use this situation for other means without direct dialogue with those in a conflicting situation.
oops...been ninja'd
SpaceX have admitted that they were partly at fault:QuoteA SpaceX spokesperson said a bug in its on-call operating system prevented the team from seeing that the risk of a collision with the ESA craft may have increased.
“Had the Starlink operator seen the correspondence, we would have coordinated with ESA to determine best approach with their continuing with their manoeuvre or our performing a manoeuvre,” the spokesperson said.
This is a bit like pulling out of a junction without seeing another car, with both having equal priority, but the other driver has plenty of time to avoid you, and does so. A quick "sorry" is the end of the problem.
Except in this case .... some sort of procedures will be needed to support 10s of thousands of satellites in orbit. For everyone's sake.
By the way, who is responsible for warning SpaceX about collision threats? Is this the USAF? Do they provide this as a service to all satellite operators?
I'm a little surprised this problem isn't far more tractable than it seems on the surface based on how the principals are behaving. Is there something that makes this anything other than a mathematics problem, even if that mathmatics problem requires an excessive number of FLOPS from the CPU hamsters?
It almost feels like they are calculating 1in1000 because they are arbitrarily introducing an artificial "sphere of uncertainty" which turns something they know is a non-collision intersection into one that might have some marginal chance of collision.
Seems strange. Curious if knowledgeable folk know differently.
I'm a little surprised this problem isn't far more tractable than it seems on the surface based on how the principals are behaving. Is there something that makes this anything other than a mathematics problem, even if that mathmatics problem requires an excessive number of FLOPS from the CPU hamsters?
It almost feels like they are calculating 1in1000 because they are arbitrarily introducing an artificial "sphere of uncertainty" which turns something they know is a non-collision intersection into one that might have some marginal chance of collision.
Seems strange. Curious if knowledgeable folk know differently.
Looking at the orbital parameters of Aeolus, the satellite it intercepted was 44278 aka 2019-029AV, currently in a 346km by 311km orbit (as of the last TLE), the only satellite with the perigee lower than the Aeolus mean orbital altitude, that currently is in a 314km by 308 km orbit.
Looking at the orbital parameters of Aeolus, the satellite it intercepted was 44278 aka 2019-029AV, currently in a 346km by 311km orbit (as of the last TLE), the only satellite with the perigee lower than the Aeolus mean orbital altitude, that currently is in a 314km by 308 km orbit.
Is it still settling into its final orbit? I’d assume so if it has a unique perigee. Last one or are others still raising perigee?
Phil
Going by info in the updates thread it looks like ESA is miffed at SpaceX for "refusing" to move first.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48135.msg1987952#msg1987952 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48135.msg1987952#msg1987952)
No idea who is in the "right" here, if there is even a right of way system worked out yet.
We better get on that. It's only going to get more crowded up there.
That he wasn't asked is, in my view, a journalistic oversight, because, again in my view, it's highly relevant. YMMV.Did he discuss that ESA is seeking funding for just such a system?No he wasn't asked and it wasn't relevant.
Seems like he's advocating for the solution ESA is seeking funding for.
I've used DeepL to provide a translation of the final paragraph:QuoteI think that in the next two to three years we should have technical solutions that make our work much easier. Communication protocols, automatic decisions based on machine learning. Perhaps also the possibility of reaching the satellite at any time and not just when it is flying over a ground station, so that we can react more flexibly. Our proposal is to demonstrate by 2023 that a satellite makes a decision after a collision warning, votes and then evades autonomously. Autonomous does not mean that it does everything on board, which of course requires contact with the ground. But at the moment we are not in a position to do so. Many experts are paid to stay awake around the clock and assess the situation. And that is no longer manageable when we soon have five times the number of satellites.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
Seems all sensible stuff.
Going by info in the updates thread it looks like ESA is miffed at SpaceX for "refusing" to move first.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48135.msg1987952#msg1987952 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48135.msg1987952#msg1987952)
No idea who is in the "right" here, if there is even a right of way system worked out yet.
We better get on that. It's only going to get more crowded up there.
On the water unpowered has right of way over powered, unmaneuverable has right of way over maneuverable, with some caveats. In aircraft personal experience is that nobody cares because everybody does everything they can to avoid contact. With surface vehicles there is a complex set of rules that dictate right of way in most situations but the reality is the driver buried in their phone has right of way followed by whoever has the most brass.
I think the OST calls for the parties to consult and cooperate. I’ll check on it
Phil
Am I the only one here thinking that creating an automated satellite coordination/avoidance system would also introduce a terrifying vulnerability as it became the mother of all hacking targets?
Interview on "space safety" with ESA expert Holger Krag was just published by German quality daily (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung):Did he discuss that ESA is seeking funding for just such a system?
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/weltraum/esa-satellit-muss-musks-starlink-satellit-ausweichen-16366503.html (https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/weltraum/esa-satellit-muss-musks-starlink-satellit-ausweichen-16366503.html)
IMHO, his statements are balanced and reasonable. No bashing that I can perceive. He argues that new procedures -- largely automated and autonomous -- need to be discussed and agreed upon, because such incidents are bound to become increasingly frequent.
Die Art und Weise, wie diese Koordination heute funktioniert, ist – kann man fast sagen – primitiv, denn das funktioniert per E-Mail und per Telefon.
[...]
Wie sähe eine Lösung aus?
Der Prozess der Absprache muss modernisiert und professioneller werden. Wir werden jetzt unseren Mitgliedsstaaten ein Programm vorschlagen, „Space Safety“, das auf der Esa-Ministerratskonferenz im November vorgestellt wird, wo wir auch Lösungen zu diesem Thema auf den Tisch legen wollen.
Today, the communication in case of a collision warning is, one could almost say, primitive. It works via e-mail and telephone.
[...]
How would a solution look like?
The process of coordination must become modern and professional. We will propose a new program to our member states called 'Space Safety', which will be discussed on the ESA conference of secretary (loose translation) in November. There we will suggest this system as a solution to the topic of traffic management.
He said that ESA is working on such a system. The funding part was not said. Here is the relevant part:Bold mine.
My translation (not word for word):QuoteToday, the communication in case of a collision warning is, one could almost say, primitive. It works via e-mail and telephone.
[...]
How would a solution look like?
The process of coordination must become modern and professional. We will propose a new program to our member states called 'Space Safety', which will be discussed on the ESA conference of secretary (loose translation) in November. There we will suggest this system as a solution to the topic of traffic management.
Standardizing something like a TCAS algorithm (ascending node UP/left, descending node DOWN/right),Standardized rules are good.
Typically, the United States Air Force, which monitors space traffic, will issue warnings, or conjunction data messages (CDMs), if there is a high probability of a collision. The threshold for sending out a warning is when there is a probability of more than 1 in 10,000 of an impact. The Air Force’s 18th Space Control Squadron, or 18 SPCS, which issues these warnings, confirmed to The Verge that it sent nine updates to both ESA and SpaceX in the 72 hours leading up to the closest approach of the two satellites.
A spokesperson also noted that both SpaceX and ESA have an agreement with US Space Command that allows them to receive additional advanced warnings of these threats up to seven days beforehand (rather than the standard three days). “Both ESA and SpaceX also submit their [data] to 18 SPCS on a regular basis so they received additional CDMs that supported possible maneuver planning,” a spokesperson for Air Force Space Command said in a statement to The Verge. “Totaling messages for this event, ESA received 32 CDMs, and SpaceX received 29.” SpaceX did not say if the company received these alerts from the Air Force or if the bug prevented the company from seeing them. The Air Force acknowledged that the CDMs are sent via email.
Standardizing something like a TCAS algorithm (ascending node UP/left, descending node DOWN/right),Standardized rules are good.
But simplistic rules of thumb (e.g. ascending node UP/left, descending node DOWN/right) are used when you have a control loop where humans have to act quickly. In this case if humans need to act quickly that is a design flaw that needs to be fixed.
Also it's entirely possible for two ascending satellites to be on a collision course so the proposed rule of thumb would need to be more complex, which defeats the purpose.
It seems to me. That there is 2 classes of objects. Ones that can move and those that can't or wont.
If all objects that can move increased there orbital TLE'S precision and published them hourly them almost all potential collisions with 2 moveable objects would be in the we don't care level of what did elon say industry standard 1 in 10000.
Then autonomous avoidance of effectively space junk would be easier because we "know" only one will do the avoidance maneuver.
Of course if we have a higher precision catalog of all objects(timely and precise) then maneuvers will be almost eliminated.
I saw a video on YouTube announcing that Starlink has applications for 4 launches this fall..
found this reference on another site...
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45440.msg1986759#msg1986759
previous to today, I was aware of 2 launches, in October and November... and 7 more in 2020, before July, and 7 more after that, before the end of the year.
Is this a change in the number of launches or is this moving the given number of launches to the left... something almost unheard of in space launches...
It's not the same. The time and distance scales are completely different.Standardizing something like a TCAS algorithm (ascending node UP/left, descending node DOWN/right),Standardized rules are good.
But simplistic rules of thumb (e.g. ascending node UP/left, descending node DOWN/right) are used when you have a control loop where humans have to act quickly. In this case if humans need to act quickly that is a design flaw that needs to be fixed.
Also it's entirely possible for two ascending satellites to be on a collision course so the proposed rule of thumb would need to be more complex, which defeats the purpose.
In rethinking several pucker situations I’ve had in choppers the immediate reflex is for the low craft to go lower and the high guy to go higher. The aircraft to the right breaks right and the left breaks left although differences in turn performance can make this sub optimal but better than nothing. One will dive and break one way and one will climb and break the other way. The only situation not covered is dead on head to head which if you have very precise tracking data will ALMOST never happen. For this a random generator throwing both craft in a random direction reduces the odd to some non zero but VERY VERY low chance of collision. Repeat random as needed.
Seems like a starting point for traffic rules.
Phil
It's not the same. The time and distance scales are completely different.
In rethinking several pucker situations I’ve had in choppers the immediate reflex is for the low craft to go lower and the high guy to go higher. The aircraft to the right breaks right and the left breaks left although differences in turn performance can make this sub optimal but better than nothing. One will dive and break one way and one will climb and break the other way. The only situation not covered is dead on head to head which if you have very precise tracking data will ALMOST never happen. For this a random generator throwing both craft in a random direction reduces the odd to some non zero but VERY VERY low chance of collision. Repeat random as needed.
Seems like a starting point for traffic rules.
Phil
The warning is the result of a mathematical calculation about an object that you can't see, thousands of km away with many minutes or days of warning. You know what it is and where it will be (or you don't know there will be a collision at all.) Reflective action is not required. You can take minutes (possibly thousands of minutes) to figure out the best course and try to communicate. If you can communicate or the object has characteristics or intentions listed in whatever data base is being used to foresee the collision these can be taken into account.
If you get to the pucker point with an unknown object looming in a view port you've already lost.
Computers don't have reflexes in anyway comparable to humans. Trying to get them to act like humans is very difficult, it's usually much easier to use a different solution that plays to their strengths, such as using a detailed checklist thousands of items long requiring millions of calculations. The last few items on the list might resemble the actions you suggest, but these should not be the meat of the algorithm.
fundamental change in orbit geometries
Is there any indication how many sats will be on Starlink 1.0 flights?
Recent announcements with 22 per plane on three planes might indicate at least 66.
But what about one or two spares per plane.
Ed
Was it? Or was it just the heaviest payload they carried to date?Is there any indication how many sats will be on Starlink 1.0 flights?
Recent announcements with 22 per plane on three planes might indicate at least 66.
But what about one or two spares per plane.
Ed
No, I don’t think so. It seems pretty clear that the last flight was maxed out. (In payload mass)
Was it? Or was it just the heaviest payload they carried to date?
Was it? Or was it just the heaviest payload they carried to date?Is there any indication how many sats will be on Starlink 1.0 flights?
Recent announcements with 22 per plane on three planes might indicate at least 66.
But what about one or two spares per plane.
Ed
No, I don’t think so. It seems pretty clear that the last flight was maxed out. (In payload mass)
I just would find it a bit odd if SpaceX would not aim to fill each plane consistently with one falcon launch.If we assume the stack is stable with half of them deployed, doing a 600m/s burn uses up 10 satellites worth of delta-v in doing a 5 degree plane change.
Migrating sats from other planes is time consuming and needs extra effort.
I just would find it a bit odd if SpaceX would not aim to fill each plane consistently with one falcon launch.If we assume the stack is stable with half of them deployed, doing a 600m/s burn uses up 10 satellites worth of delta-v in doing a 5 degree plane change.
Migrating sats from other planes is time consuming and needs extra effort.
This lets you drop off 20 in one orbit, and 30 in another.
I just would find it a bit odd if SpaceX would not aim to fill each plane consistently with one falcon launch.If we assume the stack is stable with half of them deployed, doing a 600m/s burn uses up 10 satellites worth of delta-v in doing a 5 degree plane change.
Migrating sats from other planes is time consuming and needs extra effort.
This lets you drop off 20 in one orbit, and 30 in another.
Nice idea.
How about 25 into one plane and 25 into another.
Filling two with spares.
However SpaceX spoke in its recent FCC about transporting sats into three planes with one launch.
In their recent filing SpaceX said they want 22 satellites per plane, they would drift the satellites between planes, and deployment orbit would be 350km. I would guess they use that deployment orbit for the next launches regardless of whether the change to the number of planes gets approved or not. I would not assume they will launch a full set of 22 for each plane they're targeting right now.
The discussion of whether or not to use precession for plane changes without figuring out how long it would take seems futile.
In another thread I wrote the following, can anybody confirm or refute my numbers? Then we can argue if 21 or 41 days is a long time or a short time.
By my calculation.
For circular orbits with 53degree inclination the difference in precession between 450km and 550km is 0.23degrees/day. Between 450km and 1200km it's 1.44degrees/day. Fast enough to be useful, slow enough to be annoying.
You can speed up the precession by flying lower, and might want to do that for replacements. I'm not sure how low you can go, but 300km v. 550km gets you about 0.61degrees per day.
The discussion of whether or not to use precession for plane changes without figuring out how long it would take seems futile.
In another thread I wrote the following, can anybody confirm or refute my numbers? Then we can argue if 21 or 41 days is a long time or a short time.
By my calculation.
For circular orbits with 53degree inclination the difference in precession between 450km and 550km is 0.23degrees/day. Between 450km and 1200km it's 1.44degrees/day. Fast enough to be useful, slow enough to be annoying.
You can speed up the precession by flying lower, and might want to do that for replacements. I'm not sure how low you can go, but 300km v. 550km gets you about 0.61degrees per day.
https://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-24-starlink-launches-next-year/
24 Starlink launches next year.
For that launch rate they'd have to be making at least 3 sats a day at their factory, that must be a pretty cool assembly line.
For that launch rate they'd have to be making at least 3 sats a day at their factory, that must be a pretty cool assembly line.
Do folks think the Starlink spacecraft assembly line is going to be more like a car assembly line or a traditional spacecraft assembly line?
Come to think of it. After the Starlink constellation is up. SpaceX will have pump out at least 2400 Starlinks spacecraft annually to maintain the constellation. :o
So either a big assembly plant (Starlink Megafactory) or several smaller assembly plants to supply the annual 2400+ spacecraft requirement. If SpaceX opts for the Megafactory, where will they sited it?
Pretty amazing since just a little over a decade ago they were basically launching hobby rockets.
All of a sudden there’s a lot riding on the next launch and the next batch of satellites. To spin up production as fast as they have to, with supply chain lead times, they have to prove and freeze the design now.
And I thought my project schedule is stressful...
If you think the design of anything important at SpaceX will ever be "frozen," you have not been paying attention to how the company has functioned for more than a decade.
This adjustment will accelerate coverage to southern states
and U.S territories, potentially expediting coverage to the southern continental United States by
the end of the next hurricane season and reaching other U.S. territories by the following hurricane
season.
If SpaceX really does 24 launches in 2020 then those 72 planes will each be populated with ~ 22 / plane by EOY 2020. But by Aug 2020 SpaceX could have it's 1000 sats for initial commercial viability.
All of a sudden there’s a lot riding on the next launch and the next batch of satellites. To spin up production as fast as they have to, with supply chain lead times, they have to prove and freeze the design now.
And I thought my project schedule is stressful...
Will they freeze the design for all 24 launches? Or just have continuous/step improvements as they discover more?
When do you think they will transition to including the inter-satellite links?
Without lateral coms each bird in the constellation will only act as an aggregation point for the users within its reception area and will need to downlink to a ground station for further transmission. This has been discussed but I’m not sure there been discussion of the implications.
In his FCC application for the new architecture Elon seems to be positioning as an alternative com for disasters and is focusing on the southern US. This sucks as a full business model but makes sense as a wedge to justify the new plan. Ok, he has a deadline to get something up and running or he doesn’t get the license. Is there any FCC criteria for minimum usability or is it just some number of sats that can transmit/receive?
I’m trying to figure out a viable business model without lateral coms and am drawing a blank. Can’t claim low latency. Can’t claim to serve sparsely populated areas unless they have a local ground station which means there has to be a backbone in place somewhere in the area. This makes the constellation a glorified cell tower.
The only thing I can come up with is hitting FCC numbers to secure the license and an R&D platform for the real constellation. Even if he hits the FCC numbers with a ‘minimally viable system’ and gets the license, without lateral coms he doesn’t have a product to sell.
So, I’ve been trying to figure out how the system currently in progress could evolve into a real system and that leads me to a question. Is it possible to salt some minimum number of sats WITH lateral coms into a higher orbit and make it work?
What I picture is something like this. Customer connects through a non-lateral sat which in turn connects to a ground station. The ground station connects to a lateral type sat which in turn relays through other lat sats and eventually to a ground station which either hits copper or a non-lat sat for the last mile. Latency would not be the absolute best but ok for most uses. More lat-sats would enter the system over time as would customer connect sats with lateral capability.
The lat sats could evolve into something different than the customer sats, aggregating traffic like the local ground stations which would eventually become redundant. If placed on one of the higher orbits they would be positioned To do lateral coms to other far off lat sats keeping hops to a minimum and latency down. And they would do high volume downlink to data centers.
The down side is two different sat designs. As a counter, the customer connect sats would be relatively simple and inexpensive. The lateral com sats would be larger, heavier, more power hungry and more expensive, but fewer in number. Being on higher orbit they’d stick around longer. The most important plus this gives is an evolutionary path from what seems to me to be a lame system without ditching the early lame sats.
What alternatives can we come up with?
Phil
I'm going to talk to someone in Valdez about sat coverage in a few days. They're about 61N with a big honkin range of mountains to the south that limits geo availability. Has anyone created any sort of table to let people know about when Starlink sats might be available at different latitudes and antenna elevations? I've been too lazy to figure out how high the hills are from town when I'll just be able to measure them shortly. I know it's still guesswork with their deployment plans changing.I'm at 56N, so this is interesting to me.
Without lateral coms each bird in the constellation will only act as an aggregation point for the users within its reception area and will need to downlink to a ground station for further transmission. This has been discussed but I’m not sure there been discussion of the implications.
In his FCC application for the new architecture Elon seems to be positioning as an alternative com for disasters and is focusing on the southern US. This sucks as a full business model but makes sense as a wedge to justify the new plan. Ok, he has a deadline to get something up and running or he doesn’t get the license. Is there any FCC criteria for minimum usability or is it just some number of sats that can transmit/receive?
I’m trying to figure out a viable business model without lateral coms and am drawing a blank. Can’t claim low latency. Can’t claim to serve sparsely populated areas unless they have a local ground station which means there has to be a backbone in place somewhere in the area. This makes the constellation a glorified cell tower.
The only thing I can come up with is hitting FCC numbers to secure the license and an R&D platform for the real constellation. Even if he hits the FCC numbers with a ‘minimally viable system’ and gets the license, without lateral coms he doesn’t have a product to sell.
So, I’ve been trying to figure out how the system currently in progress could evolve into a real system and that leads me to a question. Is it possible to salt some minimum number of sats WITH lateral coms into a higher orbit and make it work?
What I picture is something like this. Customer connects through a non-lateral sat which in turn connects to a ground station. The ground station connects to a lateral type sat which in turn relays through other lat sats and eventually to a ground station which either hits copper or a non-lat sat for the last mile. Latency would not be the absolute best but ok for most uses. More lat-sats would enter the system over time as would customer connect sats with lateral capability.
The lat sats could evolve into something different than the customer sats, aggregating traffic like the local ground stations which would eventually become redundant. If placed on one of the higher orbits they would be positioned To do lateral coms to other far off lat sats keeping hops to a minimum and latency down. And they would do high volume downlink to data centers.
The down side is two different sat designs. As a counter, the customer connect sats would be relatively simple and inexpensive. The lateral com sats would be larger, heavier, more power hungry and more expensive, but fewer in number. Being on higher orbit they’d stick around longer. The most important plus this gives is an evolutionary path from what seems to me to be a lame system without ditching the early lame sats.
What alternatives can we come up with?
Phil
The latency will still be quite low without lateral comms, at least regionally, and it won't be worse than ground internet for transoceanic distances. The idea as I understand it is that every satellite will be in reach of a ground station if it is near land, and that ground station links the satellite into terrestrial internet. So still far far better latency than bouncing everything off GEO.
What you lose without the interlink is reaching remote areas far from a ground station, most particularly mid ocean. Plus you lose the possibly ultra low latency from transoceanic communications.
It could still be quite a viable competitor to existing GEO satellite dishes in rural areas though, depending on pricing and bandwidth caps.
So all it will do at first is cover the last mile, er last ~1000km. With an unknown cost for customer hardware, but guesses of around $200 or more, it doesn’t sound compelling unless the rates are great. Of course everybody seems to want to ditch their current provider so there is some hope.
IIRC The pics of ground stations show dish antennas. This would have to move to phased array for production units I expect. What would the footprint of a ground station be? I’m trying to figure out the economics of this. What you describe seems technically sound but I’m skeptical on the business case. It is admittedly an interim solution.
Without lateral coms each bird in the constellation will only act as an aggregation point for the users within its reception area and will need to downlink to a ground station for further transmission. This has been discussed but I’m not sure there been discussion of the implications.
In his FCC application for the new architecture Elon seems to be positioning as an alternative com for disasters and is focusing on the southern US. This sucks as a full business model but makes sense as a wedge to justify the new plan. Ok, he has a deadline to get something up and running or he doesn’t get the license. Is there any FCC criteria for minimum usability or is it just some number of sats that can transmit/receive?
I’m trying to figure out a viable business model without lateral coms and am drawing a blank. Can’t claim low latency. Can’t claim to serve sparsely populated areas unless they have a local ground station which means there has to be a backbone in place somewhere in the area. This makes the constellation a glorified cell tower.
The only thing I can come up with is hitting FCC numbers ...
...
What alternatives can we come up with?
The amount of rural America even on the east coast (I am, in particular, thinking about North Carolina and upstate South Carolina) that doesn't have proper broadband access despite being only a few miles out of town is extreme.Without lateral coms each bird in the constellation will only act as an aggregation point for the users within its reception area and will need to downlink to a ground station for further transmission. This has been discussed but I’m not sure there been discussion of the implications.
In his FCC application for the new architecture Elon seems to be positioning as an alternative com for disasters and is focusing on the southern US. This sucks as a full business model but makes sense as a wedge to justify the new plan. Ok, he has a deadline to get something up and running or he doesn’t get the license. Is there any FCC criteria for minimum usability or is it just some number of sats that can transmit/receive?
I’m trying to figure out a viable business model without lateral coms and am drawing a blank. Can’t claim low latency. Can’t claim to serve sparsely populated areas unless they have a local ground station which means there has to be a backbone in place somewhere in the area. This makes the constellation a glorified cell tower.
The only thing I can come up with is hitting FCC numbers ...
...
What alternatives can we come up with?
Yes, the initial, no interlinks sats mean that latency across the Atlantic or Pacific is no better than the routes in use today.
Yes, showing a working system to potential customers, investors and the Federal regulators is highly important, even if it is a loss leader.
But, you have mis-estimate the utility of large swaths of North America being able to get high speed internet based upon the minimal constellation. It will only take a minimum of 3 ground stations to serve all of the US (depending on usage). There are many "fly over states" in rural areas where internet access is ludicrously expensive and very poorly implemented. The RV market alone could be a significant start at a customer base.
The amount of rural America even on the east coast (I am, in particular, thinking about North Carolina and upstate South Carolina) that doesn't have proper broadband access despite being only a few miles out of town is extreme.Without lateral coms each bird in the constellation will only act as an aggregation point for the users within its reception area and will need to downlink to a ground station for further transmission. This has been discussed but I’m not sure there been discussion of the implications.
In his FCC application for the new architecture Elon seems to be positioning as an alternative com for disasters and is focusing on the southern US. This sucks as a full business model but makes sense as a wedge to justify the new plan. Ok, he has a deadline to get something up and running or he doesn’t get the license. Is there any FCC criteria for minimum usability or is it just some number of sats that can transmit/receive?
I’m trying to figure out a viable business model without lateral coms and am drawing a blank. Can’t claim low latency. Can’t claim to serve sparsely populated areas unless they have a local ground station which means there has to be a backbone in place somewhere in the area. This makes the constellation a glorified cell tower.
The only thing I can come up with is hitting FCC numbers ...
...
What alternatives can we come up with?
Yes, the initial, no interlinks sats mean that latency across the Atlantic or Pacific is no better than the routes in use today.
Yes, showing a working system to potential customers, investors and the Federal regulators is highly important, even if it is a loss leader.
But, you have mis-estimate the utility of large swaths of North America being able to get high speed internet based upon the minimal constellation. It will only take a minimum of 3 ground stations to serve all of the US (depending on usage). There are many "fly over states" in rural areas where internet access is ludicrously expensive and very poorly implemented. The RV market alone could be a significant start at a customer base.
In the metro Detroit area most have the choice of AT&T, LTE, Comcast or secondary cable carriers using others infrastructure. Fiber is slowly going in. Very. Slowly.
Affordable? 😬
Rural? 😬😬
Fertile ground.
In the metro Detroit area most have the choice of AT&T, LTE, Comcast or secondary cable carriers using others infrastructure. Fiber is slowly going in. Very. Slowly.
Affordable? 😬
Rural? 😬😬
Fertile ground.
I think they’ll do continuous improvement, but lock down each flight load of 72 satellites. Improved chipsets or solar panels or improved mechanicals and engines. By the time the constellation is complete the satellites will be completely upgraded, while possibly never undergoing a single major refresh.
"Mass production" is not black and white, and 1000s of units per year is not "mass" in any other industry - it's barely a pre-production run.There are plenty of things that are produced in 1000s of units per year. Guessing a little about market size and market fragmentation: MRI machines, spectrophotometers, dental X-ray machines, class II lift trucks. Niche products to some extent, but there are a lot of niche products.
I bet anything that the satellites will continue to evolve, and the constellation will always be a mix of older and newer-more-capable satellites.
"Mass production" is not black and white, and 1000s of units per year is not "mass" in any other industry - it's barely a pre-production run.There are plenty of things that are produced in 1000s of units per year. Guessing a little about market size and market fragmentation: MRI machines, spectrophotometers, dental X-ray machines, class II lift trucks. Niche products to some extent, but there are a lot of niche products.
I bet anything that the satellites will continue to evolve, and the constellation will always be a mix of older and newer-more-capable satellites.
So there's plenty of people who know how to do this. The production lines are in between JPL and GM. A lot more hand work and batch processing than you'll see in an auto plant, but a recognizable production line. With good change management the lines are tolerant to many (but not all) incremental changes.
In the metro Detroit area most have the choice of AT&T, LTE, Comcast or secondary cable carriers using others infrastructure. Fiber is slowly going in. Very. Slowly.
Affordable? 😬
Rural? 😬😬
Fertile ground.
While listening to what ya’ll sayin, I’m trying to place myself into the internet consumer spectrum. Fifteen years on the road and everything I got came through my phone either straight or as a hotspot. And little time for much more than email and NSF lurking. Now that I’m retired I’ve been using a local ISP that started out local, got sold a time or three and is now part of a relatively small company with a presence in about five not so big markets in the Midwest.
I used the original local company for about a year before the lifestyle change. Never had any problems with the technical end but dealing with the front end was like dealing with the old ma bell. They were sphincters. This incarnation seems to be very business like and competent. Install was on time and later a dead router replaced no question. So I don’t feel the pain I hear about with the big boys.
With unlimited bandwidth (they throttle but I never get near the line) for $60/mo, star link would have to offer one hellava deal to make me look twice. I realize I’m atipical and am starting to see the attraction for a lot of rural areas, especially if the lower 48 can be covered by three (I’ll say 3-5) ground stations. If the price is right. And in a lot of cases even if the price is not quite so right.
Good thing Elon doesn’t listen to me. He’d be wasted as a shoe salesman.
Phil
Without lateral coms each bird in the constellation will only act as an aggregation point for the users within its reception area and will need to downlink to a ground station for further transmission.
...
Can’t claim to serve sparsely populated areas unless they have a local ground station which means there has to be a backbone in place somewhere in the area. This makes the constellation a glorified cell tower.
Of course there are small production lines..."Mass production" is not black and white, and 1000s of units per year is not "mass" in any other industry - it's barely a pre-production run.There are plenty of things that are produced in 1000s of units per year. Guessing a little about market size and market fragmentation: MRI machines, spectrophotometers, dental X-ray machines, class II lift trucks. Niche products to some extent, but there are a lot of niche products.
I bet anything that the satellites will continue to evolve, and the constellation will always be a mix of older and newer-more-capable satellites.
So there's plenty of people who know how to do this. The production lines are in between JPL and GM. A lot more hand work and batch processing than you'll see in an auto plant, but a recognizable production line. With good change management the lines are tolerant to many (but not all) incremental changes.
In the metro Detroit area most have the choice of AT&T, LTE, Comcast or secondary cable carriers using others infrastructure. Fiber is slowly going in. Very. Slowly.
Affordable? 😬
Rural? 😬😬
Fertile ground.
While listening to what ya’ll sayin, I’m trying to place myself into the internet consumer spectrum. Fifteen years on the road and everything I got came through my phone either straight or as a hotspot. And little time for much more than email and NSF lurking. Now that I’m retired I’ve been using a local ISP that started out local, got sold a time or three and is now part of a relatively small company with a presence in about five not so big markets in the Midwest.
I used the original local company for about a year before the lifestyle change. Never had any problems with the technical end but dealing with the front end was like dealing with the old ma bell. They were sphincters. This incarnation seems to be very business like and competent. Install was on time and later a dead router replaced no question. So I don’t feel the pain I hear about with the big boys.
With unlimited bandwidth (they throttle but I never get near the line) for $60/mo, star link would have to offer one hellava deal to make me look twice. I realize I’m atipical and am starting to see the attraction for a lot of rural areas, especially if the lower 48 can be covered by three (I’ll say 3-5) ground stations. If the price is right. And in a lot of cases even if the price is not quite so right.
Good thing Elon doesn’t listen to me. He’d be wasted as a shoe salesman.
Phil
Starlink IMO is not going to get all that much foot on the ground in areas with great existing terrestrial internet infrastructure, such as major cities in the USA, Canada and Europe and densily populated countries like my home country the Netherlands (where cable is currently being outclassed by fibre).
Fortunately mankind lives all over the planet and most of the planet does not exist of major cities or countries like the Netherlands.
So Starlink will be interesting to a very substantial portion of the world's population.
And heck, it will even be interesting to the farmers just outside the village where I live given that the local ISPs in the Netherlands (such as KPN and Ziggo) are (once again) refusing to invest in "fibre to the farm".
Starlink IMO is not going to get all that much foot on the ground in areas with great existing terrestrial internet infrastructure, such as major cities in the USA, Canada and Europe and densily populated countries like my home country the Netherlands (where cable is currently being outclassed by fibre).
Fortunately mankind lives all over the planet and most of the planet does not exist of major cities or countries like the Netherlands.
So Starlink will be interesting to a very substantial portion of the world's population.
And heck, it will even be interesting to the farmers just outside the village where I live given that the local ISPs in the Netherlands (such as KPN and Ziggo) are (once again) refusing to invest in "fibre to the farm".
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/spacex-says-itll-deploy-satellite-broadband-across-us-faster-than-expected/
Interesting story. 3 planes per launch, will that mean use of the upper stage or will it rely on the krypton propulsion?
The difference in cost of placing a disconnected groundstation within reach of every potential US customer to getting backbone access within reach of everyone is massive.With a modest range of say 500 miles there is no technical need for disconnected ground stations. Even the remote parts of western North Dakota can be served by ground stations in Billings or Fargo, or Denver or Winnipeg, were there are backbones.
We need to start splitting up the Starlink discussion a little now that it's actually being built. I stole a few recent posts to start a thread on alternate Starlink design/uses other than the LEO communications constellation.Additional thread suggestions:
SpaceX Starlink : Uses beyond just Earth communications (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49024.0)
There will be a non-negligible number of people that jump onboard Starlink earlier than makes sense. Personally if the price wasn't ridiculous I might pay just to be on the bleeding edge (for once, not my typical approach) BUT without going all-in meaning I'd have a backup unlimited connection.
Could you have Starlink end-user base stations able to leverage latent capacity on the user's backup connection to expand your effective base-station capacity?
Sort of seems shady but I find the notion intriguing.
Off my rocker?
There will be a non-negligible number of people that jump onboard Starlink earlier than makes sense. Personally if the price wasn't ridiculous I might pay just to be on the bleeding edge (for once, not my typical approach) BUT without going all-in meaning I'd have a backup unlimited connection.
Could you have Starlink end-user base stations able to leverage latent capacity on the user's backup connection to expand your effective base-station capacity?
Sort of seems shady but I find the notion intriguing.
Off my rocker?
I'm expecting to need geo overlap for about a year with traffic shaping and fallback. There's going to be a lot of "oops" to work out.
Shaping takes a little skill but dual wan routers offering fallback aren't difficult to come by.
I reworded my question in the original post because it feels like I didn't communicate exactly what I was getting at:
Here's the reword:
Could you have Starlink end-user base stations able to have the Starlink equipment leverage the latent capacity on the user's alternate network connection in order to expand Starlink's effective base-station capacity?
How many places (in the target latitudes) are 300km in any direction from anything else? Customer ground stations can relay traffic that isn't the customer's... Xfinity uses this model to provide hotspots. So any other ship that has the service can relay for your ship.Where are you getting 300km from?
I think the lack of laser links is a drawback but not the dealbreaker some think.
550km altitude, with a minimum service altitude for the sat at 15 degrees is ~1500km+ radius from the point on the earth below the satellite.
Or you can bounce to another customer station ~2000km away with no intersatellite links.
Are sats in the same plane in sight of each other? If they were, it seems like it would be extremely easy for them to maintain constant rf links with their adjacent neighbors in the plane. They might not have the killer ping times, but it should be enough to cover the remote spots.
Indeed, but much less than the ~70 degrees implied by 300km range.550km altitude, with a minimum service altitude for the sat at 15 degrees is ~1500km+ radius from the point on the earth below the satellite.
Or you can bounce to another customer station ~2000km away with no intersatellite links.
25 deg minimum angle during initial deployment, 40 degrees when more sats are up.
I think the lack of laser links is a drawback but not the dealbreaker some think.
550km altitude, with a minimum service altitude for the sat at 15 degrees is ~1500km+ radius from the point on the earth below the satellite.
Or you can bounce to another customer station ~2000km away with no intersatellite links.
25 deg minimum angle during initial deployment, 40 degrees when more sats are up.
25 deg minimum angle during initial deployment, 40 degrees when more sats are up.
Where are the 15 and/or 25 deg numbers coming from?
I think the lack of laser links is a drawback but not the dealbreaker some think.
Do you know for a fact that the next Starlink launches don't have laser inter-satellite communication?
If Starlink has decided that laser communication is too difficult, wouldn't they fall back on microwave communication between sats instead of relying on ground stations?
Are sats in the same plane in sight of each other? If they were, it seems like it would be extremely easy for them to maintain constant rf links with their adjacent neighbors in the plane. They might not have the killer ping times, but it should be enough to cover the remote spots.
They haven't applied to use RF links, and I don't think there's a ton of frequencies available.
I think the lack of laser links is a drawback but not the dealbreaker some think.
Do you know for a fact that the next Starlink launches don't have laser inter-satellite communication?
If Starlink has decided that laser communication is too difficult, wouldn't they fall back on microwave communication between sats instead of relying on ground stations?
SpaceX has not applied for RF inter-satellite links, and that may be seen as a major change to the filing (which could have adverse affects when you're part of a processing round.) There also aren't a lot of frequencies allocated for inter-satellite links. There's a little bit in Ka-band, and then more in V band.
Just because a subsystem isn't ready yet that doesn't mean it needs to be jettisoned from the design. They can make it work for now without them. Oneweb's first generation doesn't have ISL either.
Whos jurisdiction is it that regulates inter-satellite communication? I would think it has to be international, like the regulation of geo sat slots. I also read somebody's post that there is no regulation, that all existing control only applies to earth links.
I think the lack of laser links is a drawback but not the dealbreaker some think.
Do you know for a fact that the next Starlink launches don't have laser inter-satellite communication?
If Starlink has decided that laser communication is too difficult, wouldn't they fall back on microwave communication between sats instead of relying on ground stations?
SpaceX has not applied for RF inter-satellite links, and that may be seen as a major change to the filing (which could have adverse affects when you're part of a processing round.) There also aren't a lot of frequencies allocated for inter-satellite links. There's a little bit in Ka-band, and then more in V band.
Just because a subsystem isn't ready yet that doesn't mean it needs to be jettisoned from the design. They can make it work for now without them. Oneweb's first generation doesn't have ISL either.
Whos jurisdiction is it that regulates inter-satellite communication? I would think it has to be international, like the regulation of geo sat slots. I also read somebody's post that there is no regulation, that all existing control only applies to earth links.
Whos jurisdiction is it that regulates inter-satellite communication? I would think it has to be international, like the regulation of geo sat slots. I also read somebody's post that there is no regulation, that all existing control only applies to earth links.
SpaceX intends to use laser inter-satellite links.Whos jurisdiction is it that regulates inter-satellite communication? I would think it has to be international, like the regulation of geo sat slots. I also read somebody's post that there is no regulation, that all existing control only applies to earth links.
The FCC regulates RF inter-satellite links for US registered satellites. The international and US frequency tables have certain bands where ISL are allowed. If you read someone saying they're not regulated, then that person is totally clueless and you should not pay attention to anything they say about the subject.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:p.s. I will make an exception (I have no habit to make complete ready to copypast posts because of pesky students ready to copy everything and everywhere) and will drop direct quote from the relevant regulation:
Extended hours and weekend work, as needed, in support of critical milestones and operational needs
7.1.1LASERS AND OTHER SYSTEMS THAT OPERATE ABOVE 3000 GHzFor those who have never heard about NTIA.
No authorization is required for the use of frequencies above 3000 GHz.
As a matter of information, agencies may inform the IRAC of such usage, but no record of it shall be kept in the Government Master File (GMF), the list of Frequency Assignments to Government RadioStations.
NTIA has the authority under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to license stations that operate above 3000 GHz, including lasers, but at this time does not choose to do so.
SpaceX intends to use laser inter-satellite links.
use of the frequencies above 3000GHz is not regulated.
Since the open positions of the optical manufacturing team are all removed in the second half of august I would expect that the team is full. It means that SpaceX should come with proper "initial"prototype in the next 2-4 months.
There are no specific strange requirements beside easily destructible mirror. the problem they have allegedly solved months ago. Hence a couple of months instead of years.
SpaceX intends to use laser inter-satellite links.
use of the frequencies above 3000GHz is not regulated.
Since the open positions of the optical manufacturing team are all removed in the second half of august I would expect that the team is full. It means that SpaceX should come with proper "initial"prototype in the next 2-4 months.
There are no specific strange requirements beside easily destructible mirror. the problem they have allegedly solved months ago. Hence a couple of months instead of years.
I bet the problem is not regulation or mirror production, but laser pointing. They know where each satellite is, so an open loop pointing model would be sufficient, but maybe its hard if the beam is very narrow.
The alternative would be to use very large beams that dont require steering, but then they might illuminate multiple sats with the same beam which is a tricky interference problem. A sparsely populated orbital plane would help because it would increase the angular distance between two consecutive sats in the same plane. Maybe push the further away sat over the horizon. This would make the problem much easier.
Maybe thats behind the change in plane population that SpaceX filed with the FAA?
Lets do the math. Say we want to compute the minimal hight over earth of the direct line between one set and the second next sat. The sats are at 500km, or at about 7000 km from the center of earth. So the height over ground of the connecting line between sat 1 and sat 3 in an orbital plane is:
h = (6500 + 500) * cos (360 / 66) - 6500 = 450 km. (roughly)
Lets take the new proposal of 22 sats per plane. Then the height changes to
h = (6500 + 500) * cos (360 / 22) - 6500 = 216 km. (roughly)
So the sat will still see the second further satellite. Maybe they can deal with the interference from one satellite but not from two? But whats the angle? By geometry, the angle between one satellite line of sight and the next satellite is equal to the angle between their location in the orbital plane and the center of earth. In the first proposal, the sat to sat angular distance is 5.45 degrees. In the second proposal 16.4. Maybe they can make the satellite connection beams with a solid cone of about 20 degrees opening angle, then they would illuminate only one of them, but would have room for manoeuvring of about 10 (or with margin 5) degrees. That sounds realistic.
So a sparcely populated orbital plane would gain them that they dont need steerable beams, if they can keep each satellite within 5 degrees in all angles.
I have no idea how that would work for links to neighbouring planes though. maybe they do need steerable mirrors for these after all. But that problem also becomes much easier with a wider beam.
That would take a laser comms guy to figure. I've seen high frequency microwave signals pulled out of a rats nest of rf very close frequency wise and 40db hotter than the desired signal. I'm not sure how selective laser channels can be.SpaceX intends to use laser inter-satellite links.
use of the frequencies above 3000GHz is not regulated.
Since the open positions of the optical manufacturing team are all removed in the second half of august I would expect that the team is full. It means that SpaceX should come with proper "initial"prototype in the next 2-4 months.
There are no specific strange requirements beside easily destructible mirror. the problem they have allegedly solved months ago. Hence a couple of months instead of years.
I bet the problem is not regulation or mirror production, but laser pointing. They know where each satellite is, so an open loop pointing model would be sufficient, but maybe its hard if the beam is very narrow.
The alternative would be to use very large beams that dont require steering, but then they might illuminate multiple sats with the same beam which is a tricky interference problem. A sparsely populated orbital plane would help because it would increase the angular distance between two consecutive sats in the same plane. Maybe push the further away sat over the horizon. This would make the problem much easier.
Maybe thats behind the change in plane population that SpaceX filed with the FAA?
Lets do the math. Say we want to compute the minimal hight over earth of the direct line between one set and the second next sat. The sats are at 500km, or at about 7000 km from the center of earth. So the height over ground of the connecting line between sat 1 and sat 3 in an orbital plane is:
h = (6500 + 500) * cos (360 / 66) - 6500 = 450 km. (roughly)
Lets take the new proposal of 22 sats per plane. Then the height changes to
h = (6500 + 500) * cos (360 / 22) - 6500 = 216 km. (roughly)
So the sat will still see the second further satellite. Maybe they can deal with the interference from one satellite but not from two? But whats the angle? By geometry, the angle between one satellite line of sight and the next satellite is equal to the angle between their location in the orbital plane and the center of earth. In the first proposal, the sat to sat angular distance is 5.45 degrees. In the second proposal 16.4. Maybe they can make the satellite connection beams with a solid cone of about 20 degrees opening angle, then they would illuminate only one of them, but would have room for manoeuvring of about 10 (or with margin 5) degrees. That sounds realistic.
So a sparcely populated orbital plane would gain them that they dont need steerable beams, if they can keep each satellite within 5 degrees in all angles.
I have no idea how that would work for links to neighbouring planes though. maybe they do need steerable mirrors for these after all. But that problem also becomes much easier with a wider beam.
So a sparcely populated orbital plane would gain them that they dont need steerable beams, if they can keep each satellite within 5 degrees in all angles.Don't you need a steerable beam so you can point the solar panel (roughly) at the sun and the antenna (roughly) at the earth?
Does it make sense for laser output to illuminate the interior of a diffuser of spherical section that can be seen from a wide angle? The power requirements go up but steering would become a non issue. One laser could transmit to any and all sats over a wide angular range with a simple header doing something like MAC addressing for the intended recipient sat. Broadcast instead of P2P.No it does not make sense
Indeed, would it need to be a laser? Does lasing enable the fast switching needed for high speed digital encoding or is this something that can be designed into a non lasing LED?
Phil
That would take a laser comms guy to figure. I've seen high frequency microwave signals pulled out of a rats nest of rf very close frequency wise and 40db hotter than the desired signal. I'm not sure how selective laser channels can be.
1. I believe SpaceX intended to use initially out of shelf laser comm links. the problem was that all existing solutions use hard mirrors which do not want to burn in atmosphere. This was the core of the first sh&t storm wave "Starlink is bAAAd". Since they have got ideas about how to fix it they moved all "in-house" and started to develop their own solution.SpaceX intends to use laser inter-satellite links.
use of the frequencies above 3000GHz is not regulated.
Since the open positions of the optical manufacturing team are all removed in the second half of august I would expect that the team is full. It means that SpaceX should come with proper "initial"prototype in the next 2-4 months.
There are no specific strange requirements beside easily destructible mirror. the problem they have allegedly solved months ago. Hence a couple of months instead of years.
I bet the problem is not regulation or mirror production, but laser pointing. They know where each satellite is, so an open loop pointing model would be sufficient, but maybe its hard if the beam is very narrow.
The alternative would be to use very large beams that dont require steering, but then they might illuminate multiple sats with the same beam which is a tricky interference problem. A sparsely populated orbital plane would help because it would increase the angular distance between two consecutive sats in the same plane. Maybe push the further away sat over the horizon. This would make the problem much easier.
Maybe thats behind the change in plane population that SpaceX filed with the FAA?
Lets do the math. Say we want to compute the minimal hight over earth of the direct line between one set and the second next sat. The sats are at 500km, or at about 7000 km from the center of earth. So the height over ground of the connecting line between sat 1 and sat 3 in an orbital plane is:
h = (6500 + 500) * cos (360 / 66) - 6500 = 450 km. (roughly)
Lets take the new proposal of 22 sats per plane. Then the height changes to
h = (6500 + 500) * cos (360 / 22) - 6500 = 216 km. (roughly)
So the sat will still see the second further satellite. Maybe they can deal with the interference from one satellite but not from two? But whats the angle? By geometry, the angle between one satellite line of sight and the next satellite is equal to the angle between their location in the orbital plane and the center of earth. In the first proposal, the sat to sat angular distance is 5.45 degrees. In the second proposal 16.4. Maybe they can make the satellite connection beams with a solid cone of about 20 degrees opening angle, then they would illuminate only one of them, but would have room for manoeuvring of about 10 (or with margin 5) degrees. That sounds realistic.
So a sparcely populated orbital plane would gain them that they dont need steerable beams, if they can keep each satellite within 5 degrees in all angles.
I have no idea how that would work for links to neighbouring planes though. maybe they do need steerable mirrors for these after all. But that problem also becomes much easier with a wider beam.
You convinced me that steering and pointing is not the most difficult problem. So far, we did not come up with any very difficult problem. However, we DO know that the intersat links have problems, otherwise they would not be on the critical path for Starlink and the first batch of sats would have had them. So there must be something that is hard/difficult/nonobvious that we miss.
So there must be something that is hard/difficult/nonobvious that we miss.
An isolated starlink, floating in space, pointing at one distant target is a moderately easier problem than one using at least two links talking to satellites at relatively rapidly changing range and angle, with the requirement to be able to switch rapidly between targets and lock fast.
You convinced me that steering and pointing is not the most difficult problem. So far, we did not come up with any very difficult problem. However, we DO know that the intersat links have problems, otherwise they would not be on the critical path for Starlink and the first batch of sats would have had them. So there must be something that is hard/difficult/nonobvious that we miss.
You convinced me that steering and pointing is not the most difficult problem. So far, we did not come up with any very difficult problem. However, we DO know that the intersat links have problems, otherwise they would not be on the critical path for Starlink and the first batch of sats would have had them. So there must be something that is hard/difficult/nonobvious that we miss.
If you mean that I convinced you, that would indicate a failure on my part.
Pointing may not be THE most difficult problem, but it is a real tough problem, with serious mass, power, and cost implications.
300km was a worst case number. The actual range is farther, to be sure.Indeed, but much less than the ~70 degrees implied by 300km range.550km altitude, with a minimum service altitude for the sat at 15 degrees is ~1500km+ radius from the point on the earth below the satellite.
Or you can bounce to another customer station ~2000km away with no intersatellite links.
25 deg minimum angle during initial deployment, 40 degrees when more sats are up.
I don't think they decided this. Just that maybe the initial set might not have it.... Just guessing that they might not and thinking about how to work around it.. If they do, this is a moot point I guess.I think the lack of laser links is a drawback but not the dealbreaker some think.
Do you know for a fact that the next Starlink launches don't have laser inter-satellite communication?
If Starlink has decided that laser communication is too difficult, wouldn't they fall back on microwave communication between sats instead of relying on ground stations?
@Semmel
Just a question from ignorance. Why would the transmitted laser signal need to go through the telescope mirror? Isn't the laser beam as parallel as it can be? I imagined two separate signal channels for transmit and receive, except for the steerable mirror. The telescope only increases the amount of received signal.
That would take a laser comms guy to figure. I've seen high frequency microwave signals pulled out of a rats nest of rf very close frequency wise and 40db hotter than the desired signal. I'm not sure how selective laser channels can be.SpaceX intends to use laser inter-satellite links.
use of the frequencies above 3000GHz is not regulated.
Since the open positions of the optical manufacturing team are all removed in the second half of august I would expect that the team is full. It means that SpaceX should come with proper "initial"prototype in the next 2-4 months.
There are no specific strange requirements beside easily destructible mirror. the problem they have allegedly solved months ago. Hence a couple of months instead of years.
I bet the problem is not regulation or mirror production, but laser pointing. They know where each satellite is, so an open loop pointing model would be sufficient, but maybe its hard if the beam is very narrow.
The alternative would be to use very large beams that dont require steering, but then they might illuminate multiple sats with the same beam which is a tricky interference problem. A sparsely populated orbital plane would help because it would increase the angular distance between two consecutive sats in the same plane. Maybe push the further away sat over the horizon. This would make the problem much easier.
Maybe thats behind the change in plane population that SpaceX filed with the FAA?
Lets do the math. Say we want to compute the minimal hight over earth of the direct line between one set and the second next sat. The sats are at 500km, or at about 7000 km from the center of earth. So the height over ground of the connecting line between sat 1 and sat 3 in an orbital plane is:
h = (6500 + 500) * cos (360 / 66) - 6500 = 450 km. (roughly)
Lets take the new proposal of 22 sats per plane. Then the height changes to
h = (6500 + 500) * cos (360 / 22) - 6500 = 216 km. (roughly)
So the sat will still see the second further satellite. Maybe they can deal with the interference from one satellite but not from two? But whats the angle? By geometry, the angle between one satellite line of sight and the next satellite is equal to the angle between their location in the orbital plane and the center of earth. In the first proposal, the sat to sat angular distance is 5.45 degrees. In the second proposal 16.4. Maybe they can make the satellite connection beams with a solid cone of about 20 degrees opening angle, then they would illuminate only one of them, but would have room for manoeuvring of about 10 (or with margin 5) degrees. That sounds realistic.
So a sparcely populated orbital plane would gain them that they dont need steerable beams, if they can keep each satellite within 5 degrees in all angles.
I have no idea how that would work for links to neighbouring planes though. maybe they do need steerable mirrors for these after all. But that problem also becomes much easier with a wider beam.
To answer the question of multi frequency operation use a diffraction grating for narrow band filter and the result is a line of dots representing the different frequencies. Also not using the ones associated with higher outputs of the sun enables operation at very close angles to the sun without ever burning out a detector.@Semmel
Just a question from ignorance. Why would the transmitted laser signal need to go through the telescope mirror? Isn't the laser beam as parallel as it can be? I imagined two separate signal channels for transmit and receive, except for the steerable mirror. The telescope only increases the amount of received signal.
You are right, a laser is quite focused, with only a few degrees of opening angle. The idea behind the design I propose is to steer the laser using the focal plane of the receiver.
An other idea would be to use a Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope and pick up the emitter laser with a mirror in the central obstruction of the telescope. During manufacturing you make sure it is pointing reasonably parallel with the telescope beam. This gets away with the 75% reduction in illumination due to the beam splitter and is a better design. Thx. I made an alternative drawing.
The solar array has one axis of motion. Tracking the other axis requires the satellite to rotate around the local vertical.. This means a 360 degree rotation per year. So four times a year you would have to rotate the entire array. Green forward & right -> green left & forward -> green back & left -> green right & back.
This arrangement looses 75% of the light, but has the advantage that the receiver can be used to steer the emitting beam. You could make the receiving and emitting wavelength different and use a di-chroic instead of a beam splitter, but then there would be 2 types of intersat receiver/emitter pair and you would need to pair them up like a male/female connector. Possible if the orientation of all sats remain the same and emit green forward and right and red backwards and left, for instance. Then you would not loose the 75% of light at the expense of less flexibility.
@Semmel
You are right, a laser is quite focused, with only a few degrees of opening angle. The idea behind the design I propose is to steer the laser using the focal plane of the receiver.
@SemmelEven an ideal monochrome laser (which would be useless) is diffraction limited by its emitting aperture like all other EM radiation, with the telescope having the same function as radio antenna with its associated gain. Apart from technological limitations it does not matter if you use it to increase the signal on the receiving end or the transmitting end with the ideal situation being to use the same hardware for both.
Just a question from ignorance. Why would the transmitted laser signal need to go through the telescope mirror? Isn't the laser beam as parallel as it can be? I imagined two separate signal channels for transmit and receive, except for the steerable mirror. The telescope only increases the amount of received signal.
The alternative would be to use very large beams that dont require steering, but then they might illuminate multiple sats with the same beam which is a tricky interference problem.
The maximum total system throughput (sellable capacity) for OneWeb’s, Telesat’s and SpaceX’s constellations are 1.56 Tbps, 2.66 Tbps and 23.7 Tbps respectively.
A ground segment comprising of 42 ground stations will suffice to handle all of Telesat’s capacity, whereas OneWeb will need at least 71 ground stations, and SpaceX more than 123.
OneWeb’s system has a lower throughput than Telesat’s, even though the number of satellites in the former is significantly larger. The main reason for this are the lower data-rate per satellite that results from OneWeb’s low-complexity satellite design, spectrum utilization strategy, orbital configuration, and payload design, as well as the lack of use of ISLs.And a bit more on-topic, there's a great plot of the estimated total system bandwidth of SpaceX's constellation on page 12 with and without ISL. Starlink has the most to gain from ISL in part due to the huge number of ground stations required for good efficiency. Even so, OneWeb's system design is such that even with ISLs on OneWeb (which it is not planning on) and no ISLs on Starlink, OneWeb will still have less system throughput. Telesat seems to have the most "efficient" system by far (neglecting complexity, launch cadence, etc.), possibly because they're the most conservative with things like how many ground stations they can expect to operate, how many satellites they can launch, experience with building fewer, heavier satellites, etc.
Telesat is a much more mature satellite company, so I think there's not nearly as much PR around them. But based on this particular group's estimations, it looks like they may be a more serious competitor, at least in terms of total bandwidth, than OneWeb, which is almost a bit of a joke given these estimations.
Telesat is a much more mature satellite company, so I think there's not nearly as much PR around them. But based on this particular group's estimations, it looks like they may be a more serious competitor, at least in terms of total bandwidth, than OneWeb, which is almost a bit of a joke given these estimations.
The paper estimates OneWeb's throughput at 15 megabits per kilogram while they estimate SpaceX's throughput at 13.9 megabits per kilogram.
Telesat is a much more mature satellite company, so I think there's not nearly as much PR around them. But based on this particular group's estimations, it looks like they may be a more serious competitor, at least in terms of total bandwidth, than OneWeb, which is almost a bit of a joke given these estimations.
The paper estimates OneWeb's throughput at 15 megabits per kilogram while they estimate SpaceX's throughput at 13.9 megabits per kilogram.
The v0.9 launch had 227 kg satellites, not 386 kg as noted there. That bumps the Mb/kg to over 20.
Unless you want to posit that F9 can lift .386*60 = 23.2 t to 440 km circular LEO and still stick a barge landing?
Telesat is a much more mature satellite company, so I think there's not nearly as much PR around them. But based on this particular group's estimations, it looks like they may be a more serious competitor, at least in terms of total bandwidth, than OneWeb, which is almost a bit of a joke given these estimations.
The paper estimates OneWeb's throughput at 15 megabits per kilogram while they estimate SpaceX's throughput at 13.9 megabits per kilogram.
As mentioned before, OneWeb’s system is heavily constrained by the satellite-to-user links, which is the main reason for its lower overall performance in terms of data-rate.
I have a question - perhaps for someone with better knowledge of orbital mechanics and launch costs. Is it really that much easier/cheaper to launch satellites into the 89 degree inclination? The biggest issue with the OneWeb constellation that makes its performance so poor is that that particular orbital plane grossly overemphasizes coverage in the north and south poles, where, well, very few people actually live. (See figure 4). I assume there's a launch cost reason for this design parameter.
I have a question - perhaps for someone with better knowledge of orbital mechanics and launch costs. Is it really that much easier/cheaper to launch satellites into the 89 degree inclination? The biggest issue with the OneWeb constellation that makes its performance so poor is that that particular orbital plane grossly overemphasizes coverage in the north and south poles, where, well, very few people actually live. (See figure 4). I assume there's a launch cost reason for this design parameter.
edit:
The paper specifically says:QuoteAs mentioned before, OneWeb’s system is heavily constrained by the satellite-to-user links, which is the main reason for its lower overall performance in terms of data-rate.
I am not sure how accurate my interpretation (orbital inclinations) is, but it would seem like part of the problem. In general, Telesat went for bigger, more capable birds which require more expensive ground equipment; OneWeb went for lower risk and lower complexity to be first to market; and SpaceX took the approach of launching an extremely large constellation, with more capable satellites, which has the risk of still requiring quite a bit of ground support. My personal feeling is that the only reason SpaceX has a chance of pulling this off is that they are vertically integrated and have substantially lower launch costs than anyone else.
Here's an article on optical comsats, with an intriguing quote from the CEO of Space Micro, who mentions that their space laser system will be in orbit "later this year." I wonder if they are actually quietly a supplier for perhaps the first generation of SpaceX satellites (I know SpaceX likes doing things in-house, but perhaps this was a feasibility study). Or maybe one of their competitors testing a similar system. Or some HFT trading company using it for some latency shenanigans.
I have a question - perhaps for someone with better knowledge of orbital mechanics and launch costs. Is it really that much easier/cheaper to launch satellites into the 89 degree inclination? The biggest issue with the OneWeb constellation that makes its performance so poor is that that particular orbital plane grossly overemphasizes coverage in the north and south poles, where, well, very few people actually live. (See figure 4). I assume there's a launch cost reason for this design parameter.
edit:
The paper specifically says:QuoteAs mentioned before, OneWeb’s system is heavily constrained by the satellite-to-user links, which is the main reason for its lower overall performance in terms of data-rate.
I am not sure how accurate my interpretation (orbital inclinations) is, but it would seem like part of the problem. In general, Telesat went for bigger, more capable birds which require more expensive ground equipment; OneWeb went for lower risk and lower complexity to be first to market; and SpaceX took the approach of launching an extremely large constellation, with more capable satellites, which has the risk of still requiring quite a bit of ground support. My personal feeling is that the only reason SpaceX has a chance of pulling this off is that they are vertically integrated and have substantially lower launch costs than anyone else.
Polar orbits will slowly precess over time, allowing the birds to stay over the same locations on Earth's surface w/o needing a lot of stationkeeping deltaV. They'll also be in sunlight nearly all the time, so they won't need to bring a lot of batteries with them.
Polar orbits will slowly precess over time, allowing the birds to stay over the same locations on Earth's surface w/o needing a lot of stationkeeping deltaV. They'll also be in sunlight nearly all the time, so they won't need to bring a lot of batteries with them.
Lets break it down how I would do the implementation. The optical layout would be something like this:
(snip)
Calm down Jethro. There aren't too many people on this rock that know more about collecting photons than Semmel, and he's just fishing for more information.
Lets break it down how I would do the implementation. The optical layout would be something like this:
(snip)
As said earlier, IT TAKES A LASERCOMM ENGINEER
This is too simplistic and impractical. None of those elements would work without significant increases in complexity.
There are decades of technology development behind lasercomm.
You can't just make this stuff up.
Don't Poo Poo the difficult and cost.
Space instrumentation is really difficult.
And as someone else has in their tag line, engineering is done with numbers. Discussion without numbers is just opinion.
And opinions are like other things everyone has. ;)
We aren't going to get there on the back of an envelope.
Calm down Jethro. There aren't too many people on this rock that know more about collecting photons than Semmel, and he's just fishing for more information.
Starlink in Tesla?
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1173978862625202184
It does sound like he just threw a bunch of random terms together that he didn't understand.Starlink in Tesla?
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1173978862625202184
Notes like that tend to be written by people that don't have a freakin' clue about one or both of the things they're trying to tie together.
It does sound like he just threw a bunch of random terms together that he didn't understand.Starlink in Tesla?Notes like that tend to be written by people that don't have a freakin' clue about one or both of the things they're trying to tie together.
MS thinks investors might be underappreciating the "strategic relationship and [revenue opportunity] synergies" between SX and TSLA. That single simple statement just seems related to a section (albeit not huge $-wise) in the market opportunity/revenue projections on Autonomous Autombiles.
MS thinks investors might be underappreciating the "strategic relationship and [revenue opportunity] synergies" between SX and TSLA. That single simple statement just seems related to a section (albeit not huge $-wise) in the market opportunity/revenue projections on Autonomous Autombiles.
The problem with that supposition is that Musk has said the terminals won't go into Tesla cars. So the analysts must be banking on Musk reversing himself.
Morgan Stanley has been fishing this angle for years, despite Musk shutting it down.
One thing with financial analysts pushing satellite connectivity as synergistic with autonomous cars: the people actually working on autonomous cars say they aren't building their systems to need that connectivity.And more than 'the people' in general, the whole presentation from Elon and friends on 'Autonomy Day' just several months ago went into great detail how their philosophy relies on neither accurate GPS or high bandwidth distant control.
One thing with financial analysts pushing satellite connectivity as synergistic with autonomous cars: the people actually working on autonomous cars say they aren't building their systems to need that connectivity.
The problem with that supposition is that Musk has said the terminals won't go into Tesla cars. So the analysts must be banking on Musk reversing himself.
Morgan Stanley has been fishing this angle for years, despite Musk shutting it down.
To be fair, Musk has changed direction and/or reversed himself many times publicly.
To further be fair, he doesn't have much of a history of under-selling a potential market.
I guess that evens out to 'meh.'
One thing with financial analysts pushing satellite connectivity as synergistic with autonomous cars: the people actually working on autonomous cars say they aren't building their systems to need that connectivity.
The high sats are still LEO and not really all that high. I also recognize SX likes commonality but also recognize the are very practical people. Is there any sense in this idea or does it cause more trouble than it’s worth?
Sometimes Musk intentionally downplays things. Like the idea that the Supercharging network is a moat (it absolutely is, although not a permanent one).MS thinks investors might be underappreciating the "strategic relationship and [revenue opportunity] synergies" between SX and TSLA. That single simple statement just seems related to a section (albeit not huge $-wise) in the market opportunity/revenue projections on Autonomous Autombiles.
The problem with that supposition is that Musk has said the terminals won't go into Tesla cars. So the analysts must be banking on Musk reversing himself.
Morgan Stanley has been fishing this angle for years, despite Musk shutting it down.
MS thinks investors might be underappreciating the "strategic relationship and [revenue opportunity] synergies" between SX and TSLA. That single simple statement just seems related to a section (albeit not huge $-wise) in the market opportunity/revenue projections on Autonomous Autombiles.
The problem with that supposition is that Musk has said the terminals won't go into Tesla cars. So the analysts must be banking on Musk reversing himself.
Morgan Stanley has been fishing this angle for years, despite Musk shutting it down.
MS thinks investors might be underappreciating the "strategic relationship and [revenue opportunity] synergies" between SX and TSLA. That single simple statement just seems related to a section (albeit not huge $-wise) in the market opportunity/revenue projections on Autonomous Autombiles.
The problem with that supposition is that Musk has said the terminals won't go into Tesla cars. So the analysts must be banking on Musk reversing himself.
Morgan Stanley has been fishing this angle for years, despite Musk shutting it down.
One thing with financial analysts pushing satellite connectivity as synergistic with autonomous cars: the people actually working on autonomous cars say they aren't building their systems to need that connectivity.
The people in the cars need the connectivity. Must have some way to watch cat videos while the car is driving you around, since you don't have all that annoying driving to take up your time :D
Tesla is also selling solar systems for houses. Could be that satellite transceivers for houses is the synergy, not cars.
The high sats are still LEO and not really all that high. I also recognize SX likes commonality but also recognize the are very practical people. Is there any sense in this idea or does it cause more trouble than it’s worth?
I really don't see the point of doing that. For the Ku/Ka-band sats the links to users and the links to gateways are on different frequency bands (other than the first 60 test sats). Having different sats specialize in communicating with users or gateways would just hurt the overall bandwidth. They can also add V-band communications at some point to increase the bandwidth of all sats (they are authorized for ~4k Ku/Ka/V-band and ~7k V-band only).
Tesla is also selling solar systems for houses. Could be that satellite transceivers for houses is the synergy, not cars.
Solar and PowerWall are much better for synergies than cars. For solar in particular they already have to get access to the roof, so adding a phase array at the same time is very cheap in installation cost.
Goldstein: with Aeolus/Starlink conjunction, got the software bug that prevents communications worked out, learned a lot. Agree with ESA this can’t be managed on an individual basis by email alone; need some automation. #AMOS20th
Goldstein: SpaceX has done 21 avoidance maneuvers autonomously among the Starlink satellites; all involved non-maneuverable objects. #AMOS20th
they can use the non isl sats as backup or move them around to other inclinations to extend service latitude. Or they could dunk them all. Once they do their job (getting starlink up and making money) they will have paid for themselves and their replacement.The high sats are still LEO and not really all that high. I also recognize SX likes commonality but also recognize the are very practical people. Is there any sense in this idea or does it cause more trouble than it’s worth?
I really don't see the point of doing that. For the Ku/Ka-band sats the links to users and the links to gateways are on different frequency bands (other than the first 60 test sats). Having different sats specialize in communicating with users or gateways would just hurt the overall bandwidth. They can also add V-band communications at some point to increase the bandwidth of all sats (they are authorized for ~4k Ku/Ka/V-band and ~7k V-band only).
I’m casting about trying to figure a way to transition from a system without ISL to one with it, without decommissioning sats prematurely. Lots of moving parts. Little understanding, but hey that never stopped anybody <g>.
Phil
Has there been any mention since the May media call of whether Starlink will be sold directly or resold through ISPs?
Has there been any mention since the May media call of whether Starlink will be sold directly or resold through ISPs?
SpaceX is not in the business of reselling its product thru third parties.
That applies to Musk's other businesses as well.
Has there been any mention since the May media call of whether Starlink will be sold directly or resold through ISPs?
SpaceX is not in the business of reselling its product thru third parties.
That applies to Musk's other businesses as well.
How would you describe the SSO-A launch then? Spaceflight resold the launch capacity if bought form SpaceX.
they can use the non isl sats as backup or move them around to other inclinations to extend service latitude. Or they could dunk them all. Once they do their job (getting starlink up and making money) they will have paid for themselves and their replacement.The high sats are still LEO and not really all that high. I also recognize SX likes commonality but also recognize the are very practical people. Is there any sense in this idea or does it cause more trouble than it’s worth?
I really don't see the point of doing that. For the Ku/Ka-band sats the links to users and the links to gateways are on different frequency bands (other than the first 60 test sats). Having different sats specialize in communicating with users or gateways would just hurt the overall bandwidth. They can also add V-band communications at some point to increase the bandwidth of all sats (they are authorized for ~4k Ku/Ka/V-band and ~7k V-band only).
I’m casting about trying to figure a way to transition from a system without ISL to one with it, without decommissioning sats prematurely. Lots of moving parts. Little understanding, but hey that never stopped anybody <g>.
Phil
The initial partial constellation can provide a regional overlay to serve more people with a better quality of service in its coverage area. I imagine it will continue to operate until the newer satellites are fully able to meet demand, or there are so many satellites that the old satellites cannot be operated without interfering with the new ones.
I’m casting about trying to figure a way to transition from a system without ISL to one with it, without decommissioning sats prematurely. Lots of moving parts. Little understanding, but hey that never stopped anybody
Yup, this approach would work. The current crop is mostly engineer ‘toys’ and could easily be expended. But the original question, which arose while I was looking at integrating isl & non isl sats does have some broader logic.they can use the non isl sats as backup or move them around to other inclinations to extend service latitude. Or they could dunk them all. Once they do their job (getting starlink up and making money) they will have paid for themselves and their replacement.The high sats are still LEO and not really all that high. I also recognize SX likes commonality but also recognize the are very practical people. Is there any sense in this idea or does it cause more trouble than it’s worth?
I really don't see the point of doing that. For the Ku/Ka-band sats the links to users and the links to gateways are on different frequency bands (other than the first 60 test sats). Having different sats specialize in communicating with users or gateways would just hurt the overall bandwidth. They can also add V-band communications at some point to increase the bandwidth of all sats (they are authorized for ~4k Ku/Ka/V-band and ~7k V-band only).
I’m casting about trying to figure a way to transition from a system without ISL to one with it, without decommissioning sats prematurely. Lots of moving parts. Little understanding, but hey that never stopped anybody <g>.
Phil
Has there been any mention since the May media call of whether Starlink will be sold directly or resold through ISPs?
SpaceX is not in the business of reselling its product thru third parties.
That applies to Musk's other businesses as well.
If the destination is in the local table it would go direct. If not, it depends on whether isl is available or not. If not it would go to the ground gateway and forward onto copper. If available, the packet would go out isl to another sat for forwarding. To an adjacent sat in one architecture or an isl sat in another.they can use the non isl sats as backup or move them around to other inclinations to extend service latitude. Or they could dunk them all. Once they do their job (getting starlink up and making money) they will have paid for themselves and their replacement.The high sats are still LEO and not really all that high. I also recognize SX likes commonality but also recognize the are very practical people. Is there any sense in this idea or does it cause more trouble than it’s worth?
I really don't see the point of doing that. For the Ku/Ka-band sats the links to users and the links to gateways are on different frequency bands (other than the first 60 test sats). Having different sats specialize in communicating with users or gateways would just hurt the overall bandwidth. They can also add V-band communications at some point to increase the bandwidth of all sats (they are authorized for ~4k Ku/Ka/V-band and ~7k V-band only).
I’m casting about trying to figure a way to transition from a system without ISL to one with it, without decommissioning sats prematurely. Lots of moving parts. Little understanding, but hey that never stopped anybody <g>.
Phil
and based upon the traffic destination they could decide whether to use ISL and therefore stay in space or just bounce down to local ground station for delivery. So packet by packet use both.
The shorter lifetime due to lower orbits would be less of a hit.If satellite lifespan at 450km is an actual problem you can add years to it by adding 1 kg of krypton to each bird, so 4000kg total upmass. Quite a bit cheaper than adding an extra layer of satellites.
Has there been any mention since the May media call of whether Starlink will be sold directly or resold through ISPs?
SpaceX is not in the business of reselling its product thru third parties.
That applies to Musk's other businesses as well.
I very much hope that applies, but has there been any actual evidence to support that claim? If they do intend to start selling modems next year, then there should be some trace signs of customer support and call center development. A best effort lead time would be 180-270 days.
As there is the southern border of Canada to consider in their first iteration of Satellite Service, after 6 launches, do you think that they may utilize Musk's experience with Paypal to enable cross border sign up and payments... Or something similar... or is there some international barrier that I am not aware of?Has there been any mention since the May media call of whether Starlink will be sold directly or resold through ISPs?
SpaceX is not in the business of reselling its product thru third parties.
That applies to Musk's other businesses as well.
I very much hope that applies, but has there been any actual evidence to support that claim? If they do intend to start selling modems next year, then there should be some trace signs of customer support and call center development. A best effort lead time would be 180-270 days.
The evidence is that there have been no announced marketing deals for Starlink.
No need to make this overly complicated. Musk will announce it on Twitter with a sign-up/order page on Starlink.com. They will get a million takers depending on the required deposit, from which they can pick and choose geographies for a beta-ish service.
At first, Starlink customer service can be co-located with Tesla's in Las Vegas. Built-out in Las Vegas or elsewhere as necessary.
In case it wasn't mentioned before, with the potential close approach to ESA's satellite. That weekend was labor day weekend in the US with the close approach right on labor day, which with the on-call system failure (very commonly used in the software world) there would be literally no person in place who would actually have seen any email. So it's a perfect storm of unfortunate situations (and ESA was still wrong to directly attack SpaceX for it and push that idea in the media).
No SpaceX and ESA are not lacking communication. No SpaceX is not acting incorrectly. They're acting just as well as anyone else in the space industry with regards to space junk, if not better than most. They're just new to the process and their systems aren't operational mode yet which will explain any oversight that takes places.
In case it wasn't mentioned before, with the potential close approach to ESA's satellite. That weekend was labor day weekend in the US with the close approach right on labor day, which with the on-call system failure (very commonly used in the software world) there would be literally no person in place who would actually have seen any email. So it's a perfect storm of unfortunate situations (and ESA was still wrong to directly attack SpaceX for it and push that idea in the media).
No SpaceX and ESA are not lacking communication. No SpaceX is not acting incorrectly. They're acting just as well as anyone else in the space industry with regards to space junk, if not better than most. They're just new to the process and their systems aren't operational mode yet which will explain any oversight that takes places.
I found it interesting Starlink performed 21 autonomous avoidance maneuvers to avoid objects that had no propulsion. Odd that the media isn't talking about it especially since it is a new thing, no?
>
To be honest, I didn't know that either and I can't find it via google. Got a link?
>
To be honest, I didn't know that either and I can't find it via google. Got a link?
Jonathan O'Callaghan ✓ @Astro_Jonny
Some additional bits of useful information about #Aeolus/#Starlink from SpaceX:
- Starlink 44 is operational and capable of avoidance maneuvers if necessary
- In three months the Starlink fleet has performed 16 collision avoidance maneuvers without any manual input (!)
https://twitter.com/Astro_Jonny/status/1168976820349415430 (http://"https://twitter.com/Astro_Jonny/status/1168976820349415430")
Has there been any mention since the May media call of whether Starlink will be sold directly or resold through ISPs?
SpaceX is not in the business of reselling its product thru third parties.
That applies to Musk's other businesses as well.
The operational Starlink satellites do have the autonomous system in place. Goldstein said that, as of last week, those satellites had performed 21 collision avoidance maneuvers autonomously. All of them involved objects on track to make close approaches that were not maneuverable.
Previously, Esa contacted SpaceX. Together, it was decided that "Aeolus" evades. The agreement is important, said Holger Krag, the head of the Esa Space Attention Office. Otherwise, in the worst case, it could be that both satellites dodge in the same direction and so on. The agreement with SpaceX worked well according to the expert. That's not always the case: "There are satellite operators, they do not react when they write to them."
The shorter lifetime due to lower orbits would be less of a hit.If satellite lifespan at 450km is an actual problem you can add years to it by adding 1 kg of krypton to each bird, so 4000kg total upmass. Quite a bit cheaper than adding an extra layer of satellites.
If routing is a problem you can add hierarchical routing or share the routing load without an extra physical tier. In any case don't try to simplify software by complexifying hardware unless the software group asks for it. And then give some thought to what they asked for. The number of times I asked for cache and got flops and a thermal management problem ... .
I'm guessing the CRTC would have to approve a new Internet provider?As there is the southern border of Canada to consider in their first iteration of Satellite Service, after 6 launches, do you think that they may utilize Musk's experience with Paypal to enable cross border sign up and payments... Or something similar... or is there some international barrier that I am not aware of?Has there been any mention since the May media call of whether Starlink will be sold directly or resold through ISPs?
SpaceX is not in the business of reselling its product thru third parties.
That applies to Musk's other businesses as well.
I very much hope that applies, but has there been any actual evidence to support that claim? If they do intend to start selling modems next year, then there should be some trace signs of customer support and call center development. A best effort lead time would be 180-270 days.
The evidence is that there have been no announced marketing deals for Starlink.
No need to make this overly complicated. Musk will announce it on Twitter with a sign-up/order page on Starlink.com. They will get a million takers depending on the required deposit, from which they can pick and choose geographies for a beta-ish service.
At first, Starlink customer service can be co-located with Tesla's in Las Vegas. Built-out in Las Vegas or elsewhere as necessary.
In case it wasn't mentioned before, with the potential close approach to ESA's satellite. That weekend was labor day weekend in the US with the close approach right on labor day, which with the on-call system failure (very commonly used in the software world) there would be literally no person in place who would actually have seen any email. So it's a perfect storm of unfortunate situations (and ESA was still wrong to directly attack SpaceX for it and push that idea in the media).
No SpaceX and ESA are not lacking communication. No SpaceX is not acting incorrectly. They're acting just as well as anyone else in the space industry with regards to space junk, if not better than most. They're just new to the process and their systems aren't operational mode yet which will explain any oversight that takes places.
I found it interesting Starlink performed 21 autonomous avoidance maneuvers to avoid objects that had no propulsion. Odd that the media isn't talking about it especially since it is a new thing, no?
To be honest, I didn't know that either and I can't find it via google. Got a link?
I imagine SpaceX will need government approval to sell the ground portion (umm.. the antenna?) in every country they want to sell it in. Anyone have a different opinion?The approvals vary markedly, from just RF licensing, to going through the various hoops for assorted government wiretap requirements.
other cases might require all traffic to go through a gateway in that country.
As there is the southern border of Canada to consider in their first iteration of Satellite Service, after 6 launches, do you think that they may utilize Musk's experience with Paypal to enable cross border sign up and payments... Or something similar... or is there some international barrier that I am not aware of?Has there been any mention since the May media call of whether Starlink will be sold directly or resold through ISPs?
SpaceX is not in the business of reselling its product thru third parties.
That applies to Musk's other businesses as well.
I very much hope that applies, but has there been any actual evidence to support that claim? If they do intend to start selling modems next year, then there should be some trace signs of customer support and call center development. A best effort lead time would be 180-270 days.
The evidence is that there have been no announced marketing deals for Starlink.
No need to make this overly complicated. Musk will announce it on Twitter with a sign-up/order page on Starlink.com. They will get a million takers depending on the required deposit, from which they can pick and choose geographies for a beta-ish service.
At first, Starlink customer service can be co-located with Tesla's in Las Vegas. Built-out in Las Vegas or elsewhere as necessary.
The shorter lifetime due to lower orbits would be less of a hit.If satellite lifespan at 450km is an actual problem you can add years to it by adding 1 kg of krypton to each bird, so 4000kg total upmass. Quite a bit cheaper than adding an extra layer of satellites.
If routing is a problem you can add hierarchical routing or share the routing load without an extra physical tier. In any case don't try to simplify software by complexifying hardware unless the software group asks for it. And then give some thought to what they asked for. The number of times I asked for cache and got flops and a thermal management problem ... .
They expect the lower sats to have a short lifespan. I think the numbers were ~3-4 years for the low ones and ~5-7 for the high ones. If they’re cheap, de nada.
Ouch. Sounds like the teams weren’t integrated as tight as they might have been. My experience with networking is about 16 years out of date and mostly simple local area stuff. I’m really qualified enough to only have a general idea of routing issues, so take my thoughts and questions as coming from a firm foundation of ignorance.
On a ground based network ISTM the routing issues would be qualitatively different than StarLink. In either starlink architecture routing would be not just logically but physically dynamic. A ground based router might have several ports but they always physically connect to the same end point and routing is mostly a logical process. starLink has a strong physical routing element so the physical aspect has to be addressed. The two architectures are different ways of addressing this. I’m not so much trying to substitute hardware for software at one point in the system as looking looking at the overall system and thinking about overall system optimization.
In what I propose some things get more difficult but others seem to get easier and probably less expensive. Some of the difficulties have been commented on in ways I understand to one degree or another but honestly, I don’t feel like my understanding of the issues has been expanded very much.
Ce la vie
Phil
Semmel, sorry for jumping in late here, but I noticed some things about the link you gave to SpaceMicro's OISL product page (http://"http://www.spacemicro.com/assets/datasheets/rf-and-microwave/lasercom.pdf").
1) They are using two parallel beam expanders, one for transmit and one for receive. This makes a lot of sense to me: using a beamsplitter to combine the two paths into a single optic still leaves you with the problem of calibrating the alignment between the two devices to either fork of the beamsplitter. For calibration you can emit a beam at a diffuse wall at some reasonable distance, and measure what beam offset you receive. Subtract the stereo angle between the two optics at that distance.
2) The first picture looks like a CAD render of two little Cassegrain telescopes. The second pictures looks more like a refractor. Maybe the beam expander is two stages, as getting from 9 microns to 5+ cm is almost 4 orders of magnitude.
3) The tracking appears to be a 4-cell receiver. I presume this is fine tracking and coarse tracking uses some other method.
4) They are using telecom 1550nm lasers. I've seen experimental systems with 40 channels of 40 Gb/s each, it seems like these would just swap in if they can be packaged into the power/weight numbers needed. The power numbers seem suprisingly high (FPGAs doing some kind of FEC?), I suspect that's the limit here.
4b) I'll also note that commercial systems would let you pass some/most DWDM channels from one receiver to another transmitter without ever dropping into the digital domain. Using add/drop muxes like this, you could have each satellite use just four laser links, but have very near speed-of-light (lowest possible latency) channels to as many as 160 other satellites. Why bother routing in digital on every hop? You could probably arrange for most packets to go up, make one routing decision, get routed optically to a destination satellite, back to RF and down. That would minimize control latency.
5) The gimbal looks like a commercial gimbal which is wholly unsuited for flat-packing into a StarLink Pizza. But note that they tilt/tip the entire optical train down to a fiber pigtail instead of just a flat mirror. This makes more sense to me, since high speed tracking is not really necessary. When targeting a satellite in an adjacent orbital plane, the angle needed will sweep through +/- 20 degrees or so every 90 minutes.
6) A commercial gimbal is probably going to have ball bearings. These have been problematic on the ISS solar panels (Google Solar Alpha Rotary Joint), and suck for high accuracy pointing because the balls make detents in their races. The better way in high-accuracy optics is flexure joints, which can last forever, don't need lubricants, and have little hysteresis. You'd need compound flexure joints to get +/- 20 degrees for zillions of cycles, but that's possible.
Commercial 1550nm SFP+ laser modules are 1.5 watts, and transmit 2 dBm and receive -20 dBm. This means they need to receive 1% of the power transmitted. That won't work for OISL. Here's an off-the-shelf amplifier (http://"https://www.fiberlabs.com/bt_amp_index/c-band-bt-highpower-amp/") that will boost output to +37 dBm (5 watts), but that gets spread across all the DWDM channels. Note: the amp burns 170 watts. So if you've got 10 channels, you'd need to keep your loss to 47 dB. There will be a bunch of other losses in the system, so figure you need 43 dB.
The new StarLink proposal has 22 satellites in a plane, at 550 km altitude. That's approximately 2000 km between satellites. Two 16 cm apertures passing 1550 nm light would have 43 dBm loss.
I noticed that the 25 Gb/s per lane transceivers have roughly the same specs: transmit 2.5 dBm and receive -20 dBm. 15 watt (42 dBm) amplifiers can be had. So probably the upper limit that can be achieved with off the shelf equipment right now is 42 dBm total transmit power spread across 40 channels with 18 cm diameter apertures, giving 1 Tb/s transmit and receive in each of 4 links. It'll take a lot of RF to keep up with that.
Eventually, we’ll expand this to connect people around and between other heavenly bodies.This is a vision for 2044. It has repeatedly come up whether Starlink will connect to Mars etc. This doesn't prove it will be attempted straight away, but it shows intent.
I mean this news may be interesting - 10 minutes ago I received mail:
5) The gimbal looks like a commercial gimbal which is wholly unsuited for flat-packing into a StarLink Pizza. But note that they tilt/tip the entire optical train down to a fiber pigtail instead of just a flat mirror. This makes more sense to me, since high speed tracking is not really necessary. When targeting a satellite in an adjacent orbital plane, the angle needed will sweep through +/- 20 degrees or so every 90 minutes.
6) A commercial gimbal is probably going to have ball bearings. These have been problematic on the ISS solar panels (Google Solar Alpha Rotary Joint), and suck for high accuracy pointing because the balls make detents in their races. The better way in high-accuracy optics is flexure joints, which can last forever, don't need lubricants, and have little hysteresis. You'd need compound flexure joints to get +/- 20 degrees for zillions of cycles, but that's possible.
I imagine SpaceX will need government approval to sell the ground portion (umm.. the antenna?) in every country they want to sell it in. Anyone have a different opinion?Here are 2 different issue
On October 7th, the FCC made 20 new, independent filings on behalf of SpaceX. They comprise 30,000 new satellites as broken down below:
1500 sats at 97.7°, 580 km
1500 sats at 85°, 539.7 km
1500 sats at 80°, 532 km
1500 sats at 75°, 524.7 km
1500 sats at 70°, 517.8 km
4500 sats at 53°, 498.8 km
4500 sats at 40°, 488.4 km
4500 sats at 30°, 482.8 km
3000 sats at 53°, 345.6 km
3000 sats at 40°, 334.4 km
3000 sats at 30°, 328.3 km
Source: https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/AsReceived
The filings starting with "USASAT-NGSO-3" all come with a letter from the FCC stating "The operating agency for the network is Space Exploration Technologies Corp."
This was posted on reddit by user 'not_even_twice' https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/dgc1t6/spacex_quietly_files_for_30000_more_satellites/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/dgc1t6/spacex_quietly_files_for_30000_more_satellites/)QuoteOn October 7th, the FCC made 20 new, independent filings on behalf of SpaceX. They comprise 30,000 new satellites as broken down below:
1500 sats at 97.7°, 580 km
1500 sats at 85°, 539.7 km
1500 sats at 80°, 532 km
1500 sats at 75°, 524.7 km
1500 sats at 70°, 517.8 km
4500 sats at 53°, 498.8 km
4500 sats at 40°, 488.4 km
4500 sats at 30°, 482.8 km
3000 sats at 53°, 345.6 km
3000 sats at 40°, 334.4 km
3000 sats at 30°, 328.3 km
Source: https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/AsReceived
The filings starting with "USASAT-NGSO-3" all come with a letter from the FCC stating "The operating agency for the network is Space Exploration Technologies Corp."
I had a look at the link and it seems to check out. Starship development must be going better than expected.
I’m pretty sure this is going to set off some alarm bells in the wider space community, if it gets approved that is...
I’m pretty sure this is going to set off some alarm bells in the wider space community, if it gets approved that is...
Can't help but agree, I'm a massive advocate of something like starlink and it is setting off my alarm bells.
I’m pretty sure this is going to set off some alarm bells in the wider space community, if it gets approved that is...
Can't help but agree, I'm a massive advocate of something like starlink and it is setting off my alarm bells.
I can already hear the sounds of the lawyers belonging to NASA, ESA, the other constellation providers, astronomy organisations and space debris prevention advocates sharpening their knives...
This was posted on reddit by user 'not_even_twice' https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/dgc1t6/spacex_quietly_files_for_30000_more_satellites/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/dgc1t6/spacex_quietly_files_for_30000_more_satellites/)QuoteOn October 7th, the FCC made 20 new, independent filings on behalf of SpaceX. They comprise 30,000 new satellites as broken down below:
1500 sats at 97.7°, 580 km
1500 sats at 85°, 539.7 km
1500 sats at 80°, 532 km
1500 sats at 75°, 524.7 km
1500 sats at 70°, 517.8 km
4500 sats at 53°, 498.8 km
4500 sats at 40°, 488.4 km
4500 sats at 30°, 482.8 km
3000 sats at 53°, 345.6 km
3000 sats at 40°, 334.4 km
3000 sats at 30°, 328.3 km
Source: https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/AsReceived
The filings starting with "USASAT-NGSO-3" all come with a letter from the FCC stating "The operating agency for the network is Space Exploration Technologies Corp."
I had a look at the link and it seems to check out. Starship development must be going better than expected.
I’m pretty sure this is going to set off some alarm bells in the wider space community, if it gets approved that is...
This was posted on reddit by user 'not_even_twice' https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/dgc1t6/spacex_quietly_files_for_30000_more_satellites/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/dgc1t6/spacex_quietly_files_for_30000_more_satellites/)QuoteOn October 7th, the FCC made 20 new, independent filings on behalf of SpaceX. They comprise 30,000 new satellites as broken down below:
1500 sats at 97.7°, 580 km
1500 sats at 85°, 539.7 km
1500 sats at 80°, 532 km
1500 sats at 75°, 524.7 km
1500 sats at 70°, 517.8 km
4500 sats at 53°, 498.8 km
4500 sats at 40°, 488.4 km
4500 sats at 30°, 482.8 km
3000 sats at 53°, 345.6 km
3000 sats at 40°, 334.4 km
3000 sats at 30°, 328.3 km
Source: https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/AsReceived
The filings starting with "USASAT-NGSO-3" all come with a letter from the FCC stating "The operating agency for the network is Space Exploration Technologies Corp."
I had a look at the link and it seems to check out. Starship development must be going better than expected.
I’m pretty sure this is going to set off some alarm bells in the wider space community, if it gets approved that is...
Approval for 30,000 satellites in one constellation, who can that approve on our earth?
I wouldn't assume that SpaceX actually intends to launch 30k more satellites. They may just be filing extra orbits to give themselves more flexibility for future deployments.
I wouldn't assume that SpaceX actually intends to launch 30k more satellites. They may just be filing extra orbits to give themselves more flexibility for future deployments.
30,000?!?
Not gonna lie, that made me giggle.
The thing is, Starship could easily handle this, even if the satellites grow in mass to well over a tonne.
I think this is also partly a shot across the bow to satellite services and launch providers that the expendable paradigm is over... That Starship isn't just 'a little bit' better than current offerings, but the others are co.pletely obsolete.
I wouldn't assume that SpaceX actually intends to launch 30k more satellites. They may just be filing extra orbits to give themselves more flexibility for future deployments.
Keyword is successive, not simultaneously.
I wouldn't assume that SpaceX actually intends to launch 30k more satellites. They may just be filing extra orbits to give themselves more flexibility for future deployments.
Keyword is successive, not simultaneously.
What does successive mean in this context? ITU approval has a time limit (6 years?), if they don't use it within the time limit they'll lose it. So they can't file now for an orbit that they won't use for another 10 years for example.
Interesting that we are moving towards reusable rockets and expendable satellites. Complete reversal.
Interesting that we are moving towards reusable rockets and expendable satellites. Complete reversal.
There must be a point where expending satellites transitions into retrieving and reusing them.
To be explicit, SpaceX believe they can ignore ITU filing order since the rules don't grant any "permanent priority" to earlier filed systems, due to WRC-03 Res. 2 (see http://search.itu.int/history/HistoryDigitalCollectionDocLibrary/4.127.43.en.100.pdf …), which ITU lawyers regard as an aspirational & irrelevant historical curiosity..It's worth noting, again, that this guy is regularly a Starlink (and SpaceX) skeptic. So take it with a grain of salt. (Doesn't mean he's wrong, but it's pretty clear he's got a spin, here.)
https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1177655559639580677
Entropy begs to disagree...Interesting that we are moving towards reusable rockets and expendable satellites. Complete reversal.
There must be a point where expending satellites transitions into retrieving and reusing them.
Entropy begs to disagree...Interesting that we are moving towards reusable rockets and expendable satellites. Complete reversal.
There must be a point where expending satellites transitions into retrieving and reusing them.
Once that pack of satellites leaves the dispenser and disperses, it becomes hugely difficult to go chase and retrieve them. Better to let them disperse even further, into their constituent molecules...
P.S. minor nit. What Starlink dispenser? :P The Starlink flatpack stack is directly attached to the payload adapter.
My 60" TV is looking old and small. If only there was a convenient way to incinerate it when I get a new 80" one. That's the analogy you're looking for.Entropy begs to disagree...Interesting that we are moving towards reusable rockets and expendable satellites. Complete reversal.
There must be a point where expending satellites transitions into retrieving and reusing them.
Once that pack of satellites leaves the dispenser and disperses, it becomes hugely difficult to go chase and retrieve them. Better to let them disperse even further, into their constituent molecules...
Maybe with enough onboard Delta-V, later Starlink satellites that have finish their planned service life can assemble in one location for pickup by a Starship. The retrieved Starlink satellites can be recycled for later flights with updated modular components as needed.
P.S. minor nit. What Starlink dispenser? The Starlink flatpack stack is directly attached to the payload adapter.
Factory automation systems easily rotate randomly orientated parts, and place them in a carrier or dispenser. An energy or intelligence input overrides entropy. Also releasing satellites to manoeuvre to planned orbits is not increasing entropy!My 60" TV is looking old and small. If only there was a convenient way to incinerate it when I get a new 80" one. That's the analogy you're looking for.Entropy begs to disagree...Interesting that we are moving towards reusable rockets and expendable satellites. Complete reversal.
There must be a point where expending satellites transitions into retrieving and reusing them.
Once that pack of satellites leaves the dispenser and disperses, it becomes hugely difficult to go chase and retrieve them. Better to let them disperse even further, into their constituent molecules...
Maybe with enough onboard Delta-V, later Starlink satellites that have finish their planned service life can assemble in one location for pickup by a Starship. The retrieved Starlink satellites can be recycled for later flights with updated modular components as needed.
P.S. minor nit. What Starlink dispenser? The Starlink flatpack stack is directly attached to the payload adapter.
And dispenser, yes - the payload adapter or second stage or Starship, it doesn't matter. That point in time when all satellites were packed, organized, and had the same orbit. 2nd law says it's hard to put Humpty back together again.
Not sure if the correct thread.
One use of a 10,000's of satellite network. How about a large radio telescope? They will have precise positions from their orbit calc requirements. The positions will only get better with the addition of laser inter-satellite links. Combining the signals from half of a sphere of receivers should give excellent sensitivity and spatial resolution.
My 60" TV is looking old and small. If only there was a convenient way to incinerate it when I get a new 80" one. That's the analogy you're looking for.Entropy begs to disagree...Interesting that we are moving towards reusable rockets and expendable satellites. Complete reversal.
There must be a point where expending satellites transitions into retrieving and reusing them.
Once that pack of satellites leaves the dispenser and disperses, it becomes hugely difficult to go chase and retrieve them. Better to let them disperse even further, into their constituent molecules...
Maybe with enough onboard Delta-V, later Starlink satellites that have finish their planned service life can assemble in one location for pickup by a Starship. The retrieved Starlink satellites can be recycled for later flights with updated modular components as needed.
P.S. minor nit. What Starlink dispenser? The Starlink flatpack stack is directly attached to the payload adapter.
Not sure if the correct thread.
One use of a 10,000's of satellite network. How about a large radio telescope? They will have precise positions from their orbit calc requirements. The positions will only get better with the addition of laser inter-satellite links. Combining the signals from half of a sphere of receivers should give excellent sensitivity and spatial resolution.
P.S. minor nit. What Starlink dispenser? :P The Starlink flatpack stack is directly attached to the payload adapter.
What is the silvery beam? There also seems to be greenish connector rings and some structure underneath that isn't standard payload adapter ring. It appears that SpaceX cut the video when the actual deployment sequence was initiated and afterwards stuff like the connector rings were gone. It would have been nice to understand how they go from rigid structure to disconnected, but that appears to be closely gaurded.
P.S. minor nit. What Starlink dispenser? :P The Starlink flatpack stack is directly attached to the payload adapter.
What is the silvery beam? There also seems to be greenish connector rings and some structure underneath that isn't standard payload adapter ring. It appears that SpaceX cut the video when the actual deployment sequence was initiated and afterwards stuff like the connector rings were gone. It would have been nice to understand how they go from rigid structure to disconnected, but that appears to be closely gaurded.
My guess is that the “beam” is like a seat belt or tape measure, retracts into the payload adapter.
P.S. minor nit. What Starlink dispenser? :P The Starlink flatpack stack is directly attached to the payload adapter.
What is the silvery beam? There also seems to be greenish connector rings and some structure underneath that isn't standard payload adapter ring. It appears that SpaceX cut the video when the actual deployment sequence was initiated and afterwards stuff like the connector rings were gone. It would have been nice to understand how they go from rigid structure to disconnected, but that appears to be closely gaurded.
My guess is that the “beam” is like a seat belt or tape measure, retracts into the payload adapter.
There are four debris objects associated with that launch.
Would like to believe this #satellite constellation from @spacex is even remotely realistic. The challenges of building the ground infrastructure is even bigger than the incredible challenge of building the constellation.
https://twitter.com/Den_is_Social/status/1183431278814748672
Has anyone looked through the new ITU filings to see what frequencies they're using? I wonder if they're all Ku/Ka. I really don't feel like poking through all of those, maybe I'll get around to it some day. The only one I opened was Ku/Ka.
“As demand escalates for fast, reliable internet around the world, especially for those where connectivity is non-existent, too expensive or unreliable, SpaceX is taking steps to responsibly scale Starlink’s total network capacity and data density to meet the growth in users’ anticipated needs.”
Official SpaceX statement regarding the 30,000 satellites filing: https://spacenews.com/spacex-submits-paperwork-for-30000-more-starlink-satellites/Quote“As demand escalates for fast, reliable internet around the world, especially for those where connectivity is non-existent, too expensive or unreliable, SpaceX is taking steps to responsibly scale Starlink’s total network capacity and data density to meet the growth in users’ anticipated needs.”
Official SpaceX statement regarding the 30,000 satellites filing: https://spacenews.com/spacex-submits-paperwork-for-30000-more-starlink-satellites/Quote“As demand escalates for fast, reliable internet around the world, especially for those where connectivity is non-existent, too expensive or unreliable, SpaceX is taking steps to responsibly scale Starlink’s total network capacity and data density to meet the growth in users’ anticipated needs.”
30,000! Um, that's ambitious to say the least, given that the total number of satellites launched since Sputnik is around 9000.
On the other hand... assuming Starship Cargo works, SpaceX, and SpaceX alone, will have the launch capacity to pull it off. No one else will.
In other news:
https://twitter.com/Astro_Jonny/status/1184422813001768960
Does this really help to reduce the optical magnitude and flares at all? :-\
In other news:
https://twitter.com/Astro_Jonny/status/1184422813001768960
Does this really help to reduce the optical magnitude and flares at all? :-\
What surprises me, as someone who knows nothing, is that they haven't chosen to scale with larger, more capable satellites.
Easier disposal with the current size? Better economics of scale for manufacturing? Easier deployment? Better fairing packing?
In other news:
https://twitter.com/Astro_Jonny/status/1184422813001768960
Does this really help to reduce the optical magnitude and flares at all? :-\
What surprises me, as someone who knows nothing, is that they haven't chosen to scale with larger, more capable satellites.Smaller satellites are more flexible if the market is smaller or takes longer to develop than expected. Deploying more satellites allows planning for outrageous success without taking an additional huge gamble. No matter what the technical merits, you have to remain solvent.
Easier disposal with the current size? Better economics of scale for manufacturing? Easier deployment? Better fairing packing?
What surprises me, as someone who knows nothing, is that they haven't chosen to scale with larger, more capable satellites.
Easier disposal with the current size? Better economics of scale for manufacturing? Easier deployment? Better fairing packing?
I think they would get pretty close to covering all surfaces with a view of earth by covering the "bottom":
(https://image.businessinsider.com/5d6e862c2e22af14f94ccbb6?width=1300&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
I wouldn't assume that SpaceX actually intends to launch 30k more satellites. They may just be filing extra orbits to give themselves more flexibility for future deployments.
Keyword is successive, not simultaneously.
What does successive mean in this context? ITU approval has a time limit (6 years?), if they don't use it within the time limit they'll lose it. So they can't file now for an orbit that they won't use for another 10 years for example.
If each satellite in the constellation needs replacing every 5 years, plus accounting for a non-zero failure rate, they may need 30,000 birds a lot sooner than first-blush impressions indicate
I think they would get pretty close to covering all surfaces with a view of earth by covering the "bottom":
(https://image.businessinsider.com/5d6e862c2e22af14f94ccbb6?width=1300&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
Dunno, it looks to me like every point on the extended solar panel has a view of Earth. Can't paint that black.
When Starship is launching them they could easily have the mass budget to have a black fold-out sail/umbrella/etc to shield it.
What does the non working side of the solar panels look like?Does it matter? It's in shadow, by design. At most you're getting earthshine.
It's data. Ignoring possible factors because you don't think they'll matter is a well paved road. There are reasons they might not want the working side of the panel full on to the sun at all times.What does the non working side of the solar panels look like?Does it matter? It's in shadow, by design. At most you're getting earthshine.
I wouldn't assume that SpaceX actually intends to launch 30k more satellites. They may just be filing extra orbits to give themselves more flexibility for future deployments.
Keyword is successive, not simultaneously.
What does successive mean in this context? ITU approval has a time limit (6 years?), if they don't use it within the time limit they'll lose it. So they can't file now for an orbit that they won't use for another 10 years for example.
If each satellite in the constellation needs replacing every 5 years, plus accounting for a non-zero failure rate, they may need 30,000 birds a lot sooner than first-blush impressions indicate
This.
I wouldn't assume that SpaceX actually intends to launch 30k more satellites. They may just be filing extra orbits to give themselves more flexibility for future deployments.
Keyword is successive, not simultaneously.
What does successive mean in this context? ITU approval has a time limit (6 years?), if they don't use it within the time limit they'll lose it. So they can't file now for an orbit that they won't use for another 10 years for example.
If each satellite in the constellation needs replacing every 5 years, plus accounting for a non-zero failure rate, they may need 30,000 birds a lot sooner than first-blush impressions indicate
This.
Not this. Those filings have nothing to do with the replacement cycle.
I wouldn't assume that SpaceX actually intends to launch 30k more satellites. They may just be filing extra orbits to give themselves more flexibility for future deployments.
Keyword is successive, not simultaneously.
What does successive mean in this context? ITU approval has a time limit (6 years?), if they don't use it within the time limit they'll lose it. So they can't file now for an orbit that they won't use for another 10 years for example.
If each satellite in the constellation needs replacing every 5 years, plus accounting for a non-zero failure rate, they may need 30,000 birds a lot sooner than first-blush impressions indicate
This.
Not this. Those filings have nothing to do with the replacement cycle.
That is your opinion, which I don't share. But before we go into a lengthy exchange I suggest we agree to disagree.
SpaceFlightNow has 4 StarLink launches with "TBD" NETs between now and the end of December.
Sending this tweet through space via Starlink satellite 🛰
Whoa, it worked!!
I can't help but think that the government has CALEA problems with StarLink.
https://www.eff.org/issues/calea (https://www.eff.org/issues/calea)
I can't help but think that the government has CALEA problems with StarLink.
https://www.eff.org/issues/calea (https://www.eff.org/issues/calea)
Why would it be any different than any other satellite communications network?
Currently CALEA requires ALL data calls and a random % (this keeps changing but usually 25 to 35 percent voice calls) to be echoed by the central offices directly to the FBI.
As mentioned above, this is not mission specific, so it belongs in the general Starlink discussion thread but this is important to say:Currently CALEA requires ALL data calls and a random % (this keeps changing but usually 25 to 35 percent voice calls) to be echoed by the central offices directly to the FBI.
That would suggest that ALL internet data in the US gets echoed by the FBI. Is that the case? If that's a requirement how is it that SpaceX didn't know about it? If SpaceX did know why wouldn't they have addressed it? Seems silly that they (and others) would just start building networks if they knew the FBI would stop them. (I don't expect you to have the answers. Just thinking out loud as it were.)
I saw the initial StarLink as being designed NOT to BE an End to End user service that could be considered a telephone leg in the CALEA worldview but rather as a point in a service backbone leg.Starlink has been planned as an end user service from the very beginning, though long term backhaul may be a large fraction of their business. SpaceX will be an ISP and as far as I can tell ISPs have no obligations under CALEA.
Did I miss mention of this in some other place?: Musk's Satellite Project Testing Encrypted Internet With Military Planes (https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/10/23/business/23reuters-spacex-starlink-airforce.html):
https://twitter.com/bluemoondance74/status/1187752868939468801Quote.@SpaceX President/ COO Gwynne Shotwell speaking to Baron Funds CEO/ CIO Ron Baron at the annual Baron Investment Conference at the @MetOpera
Conf details: baronfunds.com/baron-conferen…
(Be sure to see full thread below)
Michael Sheetz’s twitter thread quotes (https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1187741337455648768) some key points from Gwynne’s remarks.
She throws some shade at Blue Origin for not yet making orbit.
Shotwell: Starlink satellites will have roughly a 5 year life in orbit before we refresh.
Morgan Stanley estimated this week how much it would cost to deploy our satellites "and they were wayyyyyyyy off."
Shotwell: SpaceX's Starlink is way less expensive than OneWeb and "17 times better or cheaper."
"Jeff Bezos wants to start a constellation and he's years behind."
Clarify, is that 1500 satellites on orbit now?
Not Starlink, satellites in general.
SpaceX's proposed procedure for next launch, pending approval of their modification request.
Re: Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, IBFS File No. SAT-STA-20190924-00098;
SpaceX Services, Inc., IBFS File Nos. SES-STA-20190925-01225 through -01234
and -01242 through -01244
Dear Ms. Dortch:
Space Exploration Holdings, LLC and SpaceX Services, Inc. (collectively, “SpaceX”)
have filed the above referenced requests for special temporary authority (“STA”) for their
respective space and earth stations to communicate during the early portions of the mission after
the next launch of satellites for SpaceX’s non-geostationary orbit constellation. In order to aid the
Commission’s evaluation of those applications, this letter provides supplemental detail of the
phases planned for this launch and deployment of satellites.
Upon launch, SpaceX will insert the satellites in a circular orbit at an injection altitude of
approximately 280 km.
During the first week following deployment, SpaceX will establish contact with all satellites
and begin to orbit raise them all toward an altitude of 350 km over the course of two weeks.
Following initial testing, 20 of these satellites will be raised further to the operational altitude
of 550 km. These satellites will be deployed to an orbital plane already covered by SpaceX’s
current authorization.
The remaining satellites will stay at the 350 km altitude for at least 40 days before orbit
raising to the operational altitude of 550 km. These satellites would be deployed in one of
the new orbital planes covered by SpaceX’s pending modification application.
SpaceX will, of course, coordinate the movement of its satellites with other affected parties,
including NASA with respect to the International Space Station.
>
The 60 satellites that we already flew are capable of operations, but the next version will have upgraded technology. By late next year, we'll be flying satellite with lasers that allow them to talk to each other in space and share data, which ensures customers will never lose service.
>
In countries where we can, we are likely to go directly to consumers. We'll have the full team of salespeople and tech support. Though, the better engineering that we do on the user terminal, the less service people we will need.
>
So, the satellite-to-satellite laser interlinks go live next year.
Gwynne Shotwell,
CNN... (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/tech/spacex-starlink-elon-musk-tweet-gwynne-shotwell/index.html)Quote>
The 60 satellites that we already flew are capable of operations, but the next version will have upgraded technology. By late next year, we'll be flying satellite with lasers that allow them to talk to each other in space and share data, which ensures customers will never lose service.
>
In countries where we can, we are likely to go directly to consumers. We'll have the full team of salespeople and tech support. Though, the better engineering that we do on the user terminal, the less service people we will need.
>
So, the satellite-to-satellite laser interlinks go live next year.
Gwynne Shotwell,
CNN... (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/tech/spacex-starlink-elon-musk-tweet-gwynne-shotwell/index.html)
Thank you, finally some information on this. "late next year" can start say, in September? But it practically means that the first batch of production satellites dont have the laser links and are bent pipe only. I wouldnt be surprised if the first 1200 sats that they say was the limit to offer the service to customers are all bent pipe.
I am thinking now that the reason for laser link delay is the wish to deploy an operational constellation ASAP. Laser links will make the sats bigger and heavier, which means more launches to reach operational state. Get to the initial ~1500 without and then switch to sats using laser link.the reason of the delay is Elon's decision to redesign laser mirrors (there was considerable noise from "concerned citizens" over risk from falling star-links. Mirrors were ones of the very few satellite parts which can survive the landing burn). The only way for them to do that in relatively short time and in controllable manner was to bring laser link construction in house. They have started to do that just 3 months ago.
I am thinking now that the reason for laser link delay is the wish to deploy an operational constellation ASAP. Laser links will make the sats bigger and heavier, which means more launches to reach operational state. Get to the initial ~1500 without and then switch to sats using laser link.the reason of the delay is Elon's decision to redesign laser mirrors (there was considerable noise from "concerned citizens" over risk from falling star-links. Mirrors were ones of the very few satellite parts which can survive the landing burn). The only way for them to do that in relatively short time and in controllable manner was to bring laser link construction in house. They have started to do that just 3 months ago.
the reason of the delay is Elon's decision to redesign laser mirrors (there was considerable noise from "concerned citizens" over risk from falling star-links. Mirrors were ones of the very few satellite parts which can survive the landing burn). The only way for them to do that in relatively short time and in controllable manner was to bring laser link construction in house. They have started to do that just 3 months ago.Source?
I am thinking now that the reason for laser link delay is the wish to deploy an operational constellation ASAP. Laser links will make the sats bigger and heavier, which means more launches to reach operational state. Get to the initial ~1500 without and then switch to sats using laser link.the reason of the delay is Elon's decision to redesign laser mirrors (there was considerable noise from "concerned citizens" over risk from falling star-links. Mirrors were ones of the very few satellite parts which can survive the landing burn). The only way for them to do that in relatively short time and in controllable manner was to bring laser link construction in house. They have started to do that just 3 months ago.
True for a constellation of many thousand sats. The initial few hundreds until they have a different mirror would not cause realistic concern. Lots of sats and rocket stages have components that reach the ground.
If that were the reason they could launch hundreds of sats and then change the mirror material.
Thank you, finally some information on this. "late next year" can start say, in September? But it practically means that the first batch of production satellites dont have the laser links and are bent pipe only. I wouldnt be surprised if the first 1200 sats that they say was the limit to offer the service to customers are all bent pipe.
...
It's probably easy to plunk some relays down on land to support super-remote fixed-location customers, but I'd think that they'd want to get the aircraft and maritime applications up ASAP. With those, another aircraft or ship acting as a relay would be a lot more cost-effective than a set of buoys out at sea--and much faster to deploy. It's obviously not the highest bandwidth solution you can think of, but if the deployment proceeds on schedule, you'll only have grumbling about performance for a few months.
I can't help but think that the government has CALEA problems with StarLink.
https://www.eff.org/issues/calea (https://www.eff.org/issues/calea)
Why would it be any different than any other satellite communications network?
You have to know CALEA and really think about it. (I had to deal with it at a now pretty much extinct cellular manufacturer when designing call flows etc..)
I saw the initial StarLink as being designed NOT to BE an End to End user service that could be considered a telephone leg in the CALEA worldview but rather as a point in a service backbone leg. This is evident when the endpoint is router with WiFi and not say a phone. It becomes more obviously with the Sat to Sat laser connections as communications becomes so much more efficient when it doesn't need to go through central nodes on Earth.
Currently CALEA requires ALL data calls and a random % (this keeps changing but usually 25 to 35 percent voice calls) to be echoed by the central offices directly to the FBI. The current StarLink does not appear to be designed with a central office model The model is communicating nodes with soon fast laser routes to other nodes. It is obvious that some huge backbone channeling all the StarLink traffic to the FBI would destroy the functional efficiency of StarLink (as it would require a central office POV overlay to ship to the FBI) and most of it's advantages. So it can not be construed as a telephony device or it gets crippled and the FBI gets overwhelmed with massive amounts of data.
I could go into more detail but look at CALEA.
I hope and expect that in the long term Starlink does not make such differentiation. Satellites, ground stations, whatever ... they're all essentially part of a giant mesh network. Once they have the hardware in place (ground-sat, sat-ground, sat-sat, ...), communications the rest is a software-routing problem, which they will presumably improve over time--assuming the ground components are trusted or semi-trusted members of the mesh. Moreover, no reason why the individual in-space or ground components need to do all the work as autonomous elements. Expect "Starlink central" to provide periodic adult supervision and assist.
the reason of the delay is Elon's decision to redesign laser mirrors (there was considerable noise from "concerned citizens" over risk from falling star-links. Mirrors were ones of the very few satellite parts which can survive the landing burn). The only way for them to do that in relatively short time and in controllable manner was to bring laser link construction in house. They have started to do that just 3 months ago.
I hope and expect that in the long term Starlink does not make such differentiation. Satellites, ground stations, whatever ... they're all essentially part of a giant mesh network. Once they have the hardware in place (ground-sat, sat-ground, sat-sat, ...), communications the rest is a software-routing problem, which they will presumably improve over time--assuming the ground components are trusted or semi-trusted members of the mesh. Moreover, no reason why the individual in-space or ground components need to do all the work as autonomous elements. Expect "Starlink central" to provide periodic adult supervision and assist.
There are some fairly serious issues with recruiting user terminals to act as routers. There are obvious performance, privacy, and security problems. They're fixable, but they incur a lot of engineering and regulatory cost.
In general, you engineer your network(s) to have an edge for customer access and a backbone for transit. It's pretty easy to build a satellite that can do both functions in a single package, but it's a lot harder to put backbone functionality into a piece of customer premises equipment. Customers have an unfortunate habit of trying to monkey with their CPEs, and sometimes they're successful. The temptation to do so is amplified if they think they can break into the backbone by doing so.
PS: That said, it'll be very tempting for SpaceX to use the CPE as a temporary solution until the sat-to-sat lasers are up and running. If they don't, they're on the hook for a lot of secure ground-bounce equipment that will have a very short life.
>
Once SpaceX is flying Starship regularly, she said the rocket will be able to launch nearly seven times as many Starlink satellites at once.
"Starship can take 400 satellites at a time," Shotwell said.
>
I hope and expect that in the long term Starlink does not make such differentiation. Satellites, ground stations, whatever ... they're all essentially part of a giant mesh network. Once they have the hardware in place (ground-sat, sat-ground, sat-sat, ...), communications the rest is a software-routing problem, which they will presumably improve over time--assuming the ground components are trusted or semi-trusted members of the mesh. Moreover, no reason why the individual in-space or ground components need to do all the work as autonomous elements. Expect "Starlink central" to provide periodic adult supervision and assist.
There are some fairly serious issues with recruiting user terminals to act as routers. There are obvious performance, privacy, and security problems. They're fixable, but they incur a lot of engineering and regulatory cost.
In general, you engineer your network(s) to have an edge for customer access and a backbone for transit. It's pretty easy to build a satellite that can do both functions in a single package, but it's a lot harder to put backbone functionality into a piece of customer premises equipment. Customers have an unfortunate habit of trying to monkey with their CPEs, and sometimes they're successful. The temptation to do so is amplified if they think they can break into the backbone by doing so.
PS: That said, it'll be very tempting for SpaceX to use the CPE as a temporary solution until the sat-to-sat lasers are up and running. If they don't, they're on the hook for a lot of secure ground-bounce equipment that will have a very short life.
Let's talk USA for a moment. How many ground terminals do you think are needed such that any sat talking to a customer in the USA can see at least one of the ground routing stations? Based upon the satellite footprints I've seen it looks to be about 5 or so. It's seems like they would need that equipment even after they become capable of inter satellite linkages as they have to "land" the packets eventually in any case.
The routes aren't any shorter/faster than traditional internet via fiber, (maybe a bit worse) but I don't see them having to setup many more ground based routers / internet gateways now than for later network architectures.
Footprints for 550 km birds are--what?--630 km? That makes it more like 10-15 for the initial coverage area, but it's not a huge number. And I think you're right that it's likely that there are high-bandwidth ground stations located near more than 15 IXPs, even to start with.
However, I'd think that they need the air and maritime stuff up pretty quickly, and then they're going to need to ground-bounce (or air- or sea-bounce) a lot more stuff, in areas where deploying dedicated stations will be expensive, especially since they're only going to be needed for a very short period of time.
It might have been covered, but I assumed the minimum elevation mentioned was for users. Starlink routing stations won't be using $100 user antennas, and will be located for good sky views. I'd be surprised if they couldn't go down to 5 degrees with them.
1.2m ku band dishes are cleared for that.
A hard number for StarLinks/Starship.
Shotwell at the Baron Fund investor conference in NYC.
CNBC... (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/27/spacex-president-we-will-land-starship-on-moon-before-2022.html)Quote>
Once SpaceX is flying Starship regularly, she said the rocket will be able to launch nearly seven times as many Starlink satellites at once.
"Starship can take 400 satellites at a time," Shotwell said.
>
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/spacex-claims-to-have-redesigned-its-starlink-satellites-to-eliminate-casualty-risksthe reason of the delay is Elon's decision to redesign laser mirrors (there was considerable noise from "concerned citizens" over risk from falling star-links. Mirrors were ones of the very few satellite parts which can survive the landing burn). The only way for them to do that in relatively short time and in controllable manner was to bring laser link construction in house. They have started to do that just 3 months ago.Source?
...As originally designed, nine pieces of each Starlink satellite, including thruster parts, reaction wheels used for maneuvering, and silicon carbide communications components (probably mirrors for intersatellite laser links), would have reached the surface, SpaceX acknowledged. Some of these would have had enough energy to injure or kill, although the company contended that even the flimsiest of shelters would have offered some protection.....
What part?the reason of the delay is Elon's decision to redesign laser mirrors (there was considerable noise from "concerned citizens" over risk from falling star-links. Mirrors were ones of the very few satellite parts which can survive the landing burn). The only way for them to do that in relatively short time and in controllable manner was to bring laser link construction in house. They have started to do that just 3 months ago.
I don't think that is true.
It might have been covered, but I assumed the minimum elevation mentioned was for users. Starlink routing stations won't be using $100 user antennas, and will be located for good sky views. I'd be surprised if they couldn't go down to 5 degrees with them.
1.2m ku band dishes are cleared for that.
they will finish the installation of the test system here...on WED but we cut down trees to give the system 10 degree access at the com site ....its odd to see it among the 300 foot ATT old long lines tower... :)
What part?There is the part where you present speculation as if you had insider information and talked to Elon Musk himself about this. Claims that it specifically was "because lawyers" or "the FCC insisted" are simply not supported by public evidence. You are stating opinion and guesses as fact, which is not appropriate. For your first post it seemed like you were maybe an insider sharing new information, or quoting an insider. Your new post makes it clear this is not the case.
It might have been covered, but I assumed the minimum elevation mentioned was for users. Starlink routing stations won't be using $100 user antennas, and will be located for good sky views. I'd be surprised if they couldn't go down to 5 degrees with them.
1.2m ku band dishes are cleared for that.
FCC insisted twice on the recalculation of the risks and to study ways of their reduction.What part?There is the part where you present speculation as if you had insider information and talked to Elon Musk himself about this. Claims that it specifically was "because lawyers" or "the FCC insisted" are simply not supported by public evidence. You are stating opinion and guesses as fact, which is not appropriate. For your first post it seemed like you were maybe an insider sharing new information, or quoting an insider. Your new post makes it clear this is not the case.
Looking at when job postings were closed does not support any of your conclusions. Companies can leave job postings up for months after they actually got filled. Just putting them up to begin with doesn't mean they don't already have anyone doing the described work with the relevant skills. Maybe they have been doing it for a year, but want more manpower. Maybe they have some staff that is moving on or retiring.the laser link positions had appeared in June (some in April) and were filled up in august. there were no such job posting during all last 4 years. It's possible to track even people names. (no, I won't do it here).
I won't go into "insider thing". It's beyond silly. Everything I post is speculations.
It would be very nice to see some (any) posts with insider information about Starlink....I won't go into "insider thing". It's beyond silly. Everything I post is speculations.
It's not silly, there are people here with contacts inside SpaceX who post information that is not speculation.
If you are speculating, or making deductions based on public info, you should make that clear. And posting your line of reasoning helps too.
L2 is the most likely place to find any insider updates on Starlink.It would be very nice to see some (any) posts with insider information about Starlink....I won't go into "insider thing". It's beyond silly. Everything I post is speculations.
It's not silly, there are people here with contacts inside SpaceX who post information that is not speculation.
If you are speculating, or making deductions based on public info, you should make that clear. And posting your line of reasoning helps too.
Just as well it would be nice to make some reflections about what, how and when comes out.
I've described my reasoning sufficiently. SpaceX vs FCC saga is free to access on FCC site. You need to parse OneWeb vs FCC though as well to understand. Probably Boeing and a few other relatives as well.Your descriptions have been inconsistent with the actual facts available. For example, it is not strange for the FCC to ask for more detail on how a calculation is done. That in no way indicates that this ask is in anyway related to SpaceX's decision to remove the non-demisable mirrors. In fact the filings generally indicate that SpaceX is aiming for well over and beyond many regulations, because what the regulations allow is often not nearly good enough in this context from SpaceX's perspective.
Satellite insurance info is not free but is available, Starlink media saga of the last year is also freely available. Heck, even SpaceX job position history description is available on the web and there is at least one source with quite reasonable discussion about Starlink jobs evolution. (though jobs positions are incomplete, which is a pity because it led inevitably to incomplete conclusions).It seems you are recognizing some of the problems with the data sources you were using to make assertions. Thank you.
Special temporary authority (STA) for a period of 60 days to conduct Launch and Early Orbit-Phase (LEOP) operations to perform TT&C necessary for orbit-raising of each of the 60 satellites to be imminently launched from the insertion altitude of 280 km to an altitude of 350 km for initial payload testing and then to raise 20 of those satellites to an previously authorized orbital plane at an altitude of 550 km and to test the communications payload on each of the 60 satellites. SpaceX’s request for authority to conduct LEOP operations and payload testing in planes proposed in the pending modification is deferred
So it occurs to me to wonder, will this be the first product that Musk actively advertises to the general public? For all his reputation for PR stunts, neither Falcon 9s nor Teslas are advertised in the "buying ad time in various media" manner.
I'm thinking they are not going to be able to depend on word of mouth for Starlink, and are going to have to resort to traditional advertising -- commercials, banners, direct mailings, the whole shebang.
Going to be interesting to see what they come up with.
It's interesting that they are estimating based on existing Internet customers and not mentioning service to new markets such as the currently underserved and not served peoples of the world.
Cheap used cell phones are available to most of the 3rd world and developing. 3G data plans in India costs 1/10 of what we pay in the USA. So internet is available to most of the people of the world. The 3 billion people that don't have internet, it is mostly because they live on $5 per day and there is no price where it is affordable. SpaceX won't be fixing that.
Here are the potential markets where Starlink will have a huge advantage quickly and these markets are likely where it will strike first.
Cruise ships. There are 300+ cruise ships of significant size and there were 28 million plus passengers in 2018. They get pathetic slow satellite internet service plans right now and I recall paying $14 per day for that slow service. Cruise companies are definitely going to switch to buying internet service from Starlink in bulk as soon as it is available.
Airlines. The company Gogo had $900 million (Mostly USA only) in revenue in 2018 providing 3G internet service (very slow) to airlines. Gogo is a publicly traded stock (GOGO). I am considering shorting it. The market opportunity here for Starlink is way bigger than just the $900 million that Gogo makes in the USA/Canada market. Europe and Asia are also another few billion dollars $$$ in opportunity for Starlink.
Also basically every boat of any size is a potential customer of Starlink.
Container ships = 50,000
Mega Yachts = 10,000+
Regular Yachts = 250,000+ (wealthy doctors, investment bankers, small business owners, etc)
Commercial fishing ships = hundreds of thousands of large commercial fishing boats out there
300+ cruise ships carried over 28 million people in 2018.
There is several billion dollars in market opportunity right with that list. Starlink broadband will likely dominate these markets within a few years of being available. The current internet data speeds provided by satellites are just way too slow to compete.
Just my opinion.
So it occurs to me to wonder, will this be the first product that Musk actively advertises to the general public? For all his reputation for PR stunts, neither Falcon 9s nor Teslas are advertised in the "buying ad time in various media" manner.
I'm thinking they are not going to be able to depend on word of mouth for Starlink, and are going to have to resort to traditional advertising -- commercials, banners, direct mailings, the whole shebang.
Going to be interesting to see what they come up with.
I think about Starlink's future and I believe that Starlink could be use as a constellation for Mars internet. When we talk about multiplanetary humanity, we have to think that human need various device on the place they live. Those needs could be internet and high speed communication on Mars.As Starlink exists now?
What you think about that ?
As a design concept with similar parts sure, but not as is. Starlink requires a dedicated manufacturing facility and launch resources just to keep up with the replacement rate. The first world wide Mars system will need to be geostationary.Not "geo"stationary, it would be areostationary. I vehemently disagree.
The exact details escape me but I have many questions. Point me towards a better thread and I would love to hash it out.
So it occurs to me to wonder, will this be the first product that Musk actively advertises to the general public? For all his reputation for PR stunts, neither Falcon 9s nor Teslas are advertised in the "buying ad time in various media" manner.
I'm thinking they are not going to be able to depend on word of mouth for Starlink, and are going to have to resort to traditional advertising -- commercials, banners, direct mailings, the whole shebang.
Going to be interesting to see what they come up with.
So it occurs to me to wonder, will this be the first product that Musk actively advertises to the general public? For all his reputation for PR stunts, neither Falcon 9s nor Teslas are advertised in the "buying ad time in various media" manner.
I'm thinking they are not going to be able to depend on word of mouth for Starlink, and are going to have to resort to traditional advertising -- commercials, banners, direct mailings, the whole shebang.
Going to be interesting to see what they come up with.
Does door to door at SolarCity count?
So it occurs to me to wonder, will this be the first product that Musk actively advertises to the general public? For all his reputation for PR stunts, neither Falcon 9s nor Teslas are advertised in the "buying ad time in various media" manner.
I'm thinking they are not going to be able to depend on word of mouth for Starlink, and are going to have to resort to traditional advertising -- commercials, banners, direct mailings, the whole shebang.
Going to be interesting to see what they come up with.
Does door to door at SolarCity count?
I had actually forgotten about SolarCity. I personally haven't seen an ad for them, but then I'm not in their covered region either. Do they go door to door now after the acquisition?
I should note that I am not expressly against advertising, just wondering what form it will take for Starlink. And I think they need more market penetration and speedy buildup than one can get from door to door. Not that it matters much for me. Seeing as that I am pretty much the exact target market for Starlink I'll be signing up as soon as I can get on the waiting list, so no advertising required.
I think about Starlink's future and I believe that Starlink could be use as a constellation for Mars internet. When we talk about multiplanetary humanity, we have to think that human need various device on the place they live. Those needs could be internet and high speed communication on Mars.
What you think about that ?
Is there a way to know when the line of Starlink satellites will pass overhead? So a map with the trajectory and time after launch, or somesuch? I'd love to see that with my own eyes. Considering I live in an area with extensive artificial lighting, my chances to discern anything are pretty low, so I'd love to at least know when I should be looking.
Is there a way to know when the line of Starlink satellites will pass overhead? So a map with the trajectory and time after launch, or somesuch? I'd love to see that with my own eyes. Considering I live in an area with extensive artificial lighting, my chances to discern anything are pretty low, so I'd love to at least know when I should be looking.
Heavensabove is a good site. There are many others.
I've been thread-hunting for this but haven't found the discussion yet -- what is the deployment mechanism for these? Whatever it is, it's brilliant. They mentioned a "tensioner release" on the webcast today but I am just very curious if anyone has an idea how it works.Each Starlink has three cylindrical mounting points which insert slightly into the next one in the stack preventing sideways motion (they are stacked two side by side 30 sats high). Four tension rods span the whole stack and keeps it in compression. Second stage starts rotating perpendicular to the long axis and the tension rods are released so that the stack separates due to different tangential velocities.
Anyone know how they plan to unload the reaction control wheels?
Ah, I didn't realize they had enough of them.Anyone know how they plan to unload the reaction control wheels?
Hall thrusters with krypton
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132906066423889920Ah, I didn't realize they had enough of them.Anyone know how they plan to unload the reaction control wheels?
Hall thrusters with krypton
I've been thread-hunting for this but haven't found the discussion yet -- what is the deployment mechanism for these? Whatever it is, it's brilliant. They mentioned a "tensioner release" on the webcast today but I am just very curious if anyone has an idea how it works.Each Starlink has three cylindrical mounting points which insert slightly into the next one in the stack preventing sideways motion (they are stacked two side by side 30 sats high). Four tension rods span the whole stack and keeps it in compression. Second stage starts rotating perpendicular to the long axis and the tension rods are released so that the stack separates due to different tangential velocities.
Analogy: grab a deck of cards along the sides from above, make a gentle sweeping motion and release. Cards everywhere...
Seeing as the starlink hardware is pretty small/lightweight, can it be installed in planes and ships to act as bent-pipe relay stations?
in other words, instead of just end user terminals planes could have the same hardware as the sats (minus all the satellite specific stuff)?
I've been thread-hunting for this but haven't found the discussion yet -- what is the deployment mechanism for these? Whatever it is, it's brilliant. They mentioned a "tensioner release" on the webcast today but I am just very curious if anyone has an idea how it works.Each Starlink has three cylindrical mounting points which insert slightly into the next one in the stack preventing sideways motion (they are stacked two side by side 30 sats high). Four tension rods span the whole stack and keeps it in compression. Second stage starts rotating perpendicular to the long axis and the tension rods are released so that the stack separates due to different tangential velocities.
Analogy: grab a deck of cards along the sides from above, make a gentle sweeping motion and release. Cards everywhere...
So the 4 rods end up being ejected debris then? The last launch had 4 unidentifieds slowly deorbiting that would fit the description.
I've been thread-hunting for this but haven't found the discussion yet -- what is the deployment mechanism for these? Whatever it is, it's brilliant. They mentioned a "tensioner release" on the webcast today but I am just very curious if anyone has an idea how it works.Each Starlink has three cylindrical mounting points which insert slightly into the next one in the stack preventing sideways motion (they are stacked two side by side 30 sats high). Four tension rods span the whole stack and keeps it in compression. Second stage starts rotating perpendicular to the long axis and the tension rods are released so that the stack separates due to different tangential velocities.
Analogy: grab a deck of cards along the sides from above, make a gentle sweeping motion and release. Cards everywhere...
So the 4 rods end up being ejected debris then? The last launch had 4 unidentifieds slowly deorbiting that would fit the description.
Couldn't they make these rods out of composite so they burn up better and reenter faster? Maybe attach a small sail to the end of a rod to reenter sooner?
I've been thread-hunting for this but haven't found the discussion yet -- what is the deployment mechanism for these? Whatever it is, it's brilliant. They mentioned a "tensioner release" on the webcast today but I am just very curious if anyone has an idea how it works.Each Starlink has three cylindrical mounting points which insert slightly into the next one in the stack preventing sideways motion (they are stacked two side by side 30 sats high). Four tension rods span the whole stack and keeps it in compression. Second stage starts rotating perpendicular to the long axis and the tension rods are released so that the stack separates due to different tangential velocities.
Analogy: grab a deck of cards along the sides from above, make a gentle sweeping motion and release. Cards everywhere...
So the 4 rods end up being ejected debris then? The last launch had 4 unidentifieds slowly deorbiting that would fit the description.
According to the Space Foundation, a nonprofit based in Colorado that advocates for space industries around the world, the launch will propel SpaceX to the No. 2 position from a number-on-orbit standpoint:
* Planet: 197 Earth observation satellites
* SpaceX: 120 internet-beaming satellites (117 after contact was lost with three in May; expected to deorbit and burn up)
* Iridium: 106 communications satellites
* Air Force: A mix of 98 classified, communications, Earth observation, position and navigation, and technology development satellites
* Spire: 85 Earth observation satellites
* NASA: 67 science, Earth science, technology development, and communications satellites (includes International Space Station)
With just two more Starlink launches, scheduled to happen by next year, SpaceX will eclipse Planet to become the No. 1 operator by volume.
I mean this news may be interesting - 10 minutes ago I received mail:
//Dear valued LeoSat Partner, We very much appreciate your interest and commitment to LeoSat and with this letter I would like to update you on the latest developments.
LeoSat as a NewSpace company is confronted with the same challenges of any start-up that is moving along the evolution from vision to reality. Whilst the company maintains its strong vision as a unique solution for B2B data connectivity in LEO, validated by the market and our early investors, we are now facing critical funding issues. Late last week we had to make the very difficult decision to cancel our early obtained FCC license that required a long term financial commitment equal to that of multiple FTEs. As a startup we could no longer justify carrying the cost this early in the project and we will reapply for this license closer to launch, in parallel to obtaining our licenses in other countries. //
Starlink will have minus one competitor and more interest from investors
Credit: LeoSat PARIS — Startup satellite broadband B2B provider LeoSat has suspended operations — which in recent months has mainly consisted of looking for investors — and
Here's something interesting. Back in July, two @SpaceX #Starlink satellites changed their orbits and manoeuvred close to each other. The closest approach was on July 21st, when around 18:32UT the distance was only 80 meters! What was going on here @elonmusk?
The two #Starlink satellites were Starlink-67 [44278/19029AV] and Starlink-46 [44246/19029M]. Shortly after launch, the orbit of Starlink-67 was lowered to 400 km, supposedly to demonstrate re-entry. Starlink-46 had manoeuvred to the operational altitude of 550km.
Around mid-July, both satellites actively manoeuvred away from those orbits to initiate the close approach by matching their orbital planes and altitudes. Between July 21 and 24, they stayed well within 40 km from each other, with two very close approaches of 100 m on July 21st.
After these 3 days, Starlink-46 raised its orbit and moved away from Starlink-67. Later on both satellites further changed their orbits, so both were still active at that time. (On September 2, Starlink-67 nearly collided with @ESA's #Aeolus satellite.) twitter.com/esaoperations/…
These close approaches between Starlink-46 and 67 suggest that one inspected the other. This raises a host of questions... Why was an inspection needed? What sensors do #Starlink satellites have that makes it worthwhile to move an operational satellite for this inspection?
What is special about Starlink-46? Why did is it the only one that lowered its orbit? Do either Starlink-46 or 67 have enough fuel to either move back to operational altitude, or actively de-orbit themselves? Why did @SpaceX not publicize this close encounter? (Did I miss it?)
These calculations use publicly available orbital elements of #Starlink satellites. They are available at @SpaceTrackOrg and at @TSKelso's celestrak.com. I'd be interested in confirmation of my calculations. @planet4589 @Marco_Langbroek @cosmos4u @Astro_Jonny
Very interesting stuff. Throwing my hat into the ring, I'm going to guess that they were testing collision avoidance sensors and autonomous collision avoidance systems.Maybe testing the ability of a retiring satellite to deorbit a defective one.
>
For instance, I wonder whether Starlink will ever be introduced into some parts of Europe for reasons unrelated to technological fitness.
>
For instance, I wonder whether Starlink will ever be introduced into some parts of Europe for reasons unrelated to technological fitness.
If DoD becomes an anchor tenant much of NATO will follow. Then it becomes a question of commercial customers being allowed to use StarLink by protectionist minded local govts..
It was great to see the report of 610 megabit downloads into the cockpit of a C-12J Huron. I will be interested in seeing whether the newly-launched Ka-band satellites will be able to push that over a terabit.
I don't know if it was EM or GS that said the new batch have 4X the data transfer throughput of the previous ones. Of course what wasn't mentioned was if that was per beam or overall throughput.>
For instance, I wonder whether Starlink will ever be introduced into some parts of Europe for reasons unrelated to technological fitness.
If DoD becomes an anchor tenant much of NATO will follow. Then it becomes a question of commercial customers being allowed to use StarLink by protectionist minded local govts..
I agree that DoD is a key customer. At this point, SpaceX is assuming the risk with the FCC that there will be complications with the ITU. But if it's a matter of national security, SpaceX will probably be able to tell the ITU to pound sand, should the need arise, and it will all be worked out satisfactorily to SpaceX.
It was great to see the report of 610 megabit downloads into the cockpit of a C-12J Huron. I will be interested in seeing whether the newly-launched Ka-band satellites will be able to push that over a gigabit.
Great visualization of #Starlink’s new orbits!
Animation: reddit.com/r/Starlink/com…
Check it out for yourself: celestrak.com/cesium/orbit-v…
These things matter. There are hard costs and limited funds. People shouldn't forget that.
These things matter. There are hard costs and limited funds. People shouldn't forget that.
Regarding financing for Starship, one word...
Starlink
If that progresses as planned, SpaceX will not have issues with financing going forward and optics will be less of an issue.
Starlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
These things matter. There are hard costs and limited funds. People shouldn't forget that.
Regarding financing for Starship, one word...
Starlink
If that progresses as planned, SpaceX will not have issues with financing going forward and optics will be less of an issue.
Starlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
These things matter. There are hard costs and limited funds. People shouldn't forget that.
Regarding financing for Starship, one word...
Starlink
If that progresses as planned, SpaceX will not have issues with financing going forward and optics will be less of an issue.
LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.
Starlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
These things matter. There are hard costs and limited funds. People shouldn't forget that.
Regarding financing for Starship, one word...
Starlink
If that progresses as planned, SpaceX will not have issues with financing going forward and optics will be less of an issue.
LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.
Starlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.
These things matter. There are hard costs and limited funds. People shouldn't forget that.
Regarding financing for Starship, one word...
Starlink
If that progresses as planned, SpaceX will not have issues with financing going forward and optics will be less of an issue.
Chicken and egg: They need Starship in the not too distant future to launch the bulk of the Starlink satellites.
Starlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
These things matter. There are hard costs and limited funds. People shouldn't forget that.
Regarding financing for Starship, one word...
Starlink
If that progresses as planned, SpaceX will not have issues with financing going forward and optics will be less of an issue.
LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.
5G has a giant black eye (in the US anyway) due to the China/Huawei fiasco.
All US operators are investing heavily in 5G deployment as we speak.Starlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
These things matter. There are hard costs and limited funds. People shouldn't forget that.
Regarding financing for Starship, one word...
Starlink
If that progresses as planned, SpaceX will not have issues with financing going forward and optics will be less of an issue.
LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.
5G has a giant black eye (in the US anyway) due to the China/Huawei fiasco.
All US operators are investing heavily in 5G deployment as we speak.
All US operators are investing heavily in 5G deployment as we speak.OT.
Starlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.
As a rural Texas resident with ridiculously expensive choices for home internet, I disagree. There are no conventional network providers at all among my choices. A local telephone coop 5mbs @$90/mo, a rural wireless broadband service offering 3mbs down-1mbs up @$80/mo, and cell phone data (which is sketchy, but what I use now).
Carve-over from Texas Prototype DiscussionStarlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.
As a rural Texas resident with ridiculously expensive choices for home internet, I disagree. There are no conventional network providers at all among my choices. A local telephone coop 5mbs @$90/mo, a rural wireless broadband service offering 3mbs down-1mbs up @$80/mo, and cell phone data (which is sketchy, but what I use now).
Heck, I've got solid service at regular 100 MByte/s download for $65 and will jump on Starlink to kick the tires as soon as I can simply because of what it supports.
But as with your situation, there are plenty of folks even in moderately populated areas here that don't have great options. My parents within 20 mins of a major city have weak DSL and 1-bar 4G. There is a lot of untapped rural market potential.
Starlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.
As a rural Texas resident with ridiculously expensive choices for home internet, I disagree. There are no conventional network providers at all among my choices. A local telephone coop 5mbs @$90/mo, a rural wireless broadband service offering 3mbs down-1mbs up @$80/mo, and cell phone data (which is sketchy, but what I use now).
There will be plenty of domestic users of Starkink, supporting OCCUPY MARS with every key stroke. If nothing else, it will force the status quo to become competitive price-wise for their urban users. As well as provide new startup providers a source of service to distribute at a lower rate. It has been a long time coming, but SpaceX will level the playing field in this department and I suspect adoption will generate significant income for Starship development.
Carve-over from Texas Prototype DiscussionStarlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.
As a rural Texas resident with ridiculously expensive choices for home internet, I disagree. There are no conventional network providers at all among my choices. A local telephone coop 5mbs @$90/mo, a rural wireless broadband service offering 3mbs down-1mbs up @$80/mo, and cell phone data (which is sketchy, but what I use now).
Heck, I've got solid service at regular 100 MByte/s download for $65 and will jump on Starlink to kick the tires as soon as I can simply because of what it supports.
But as with your situation, there are plenty of folks even in moderately populated areas here that don't have great options. My parents within 20 mins of a major city have weak DSL and 1-bar 4G. There is a lot of untapped rural market potential.
Starlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.
As a rural Texas resident with ridiculously expensive choices for home internet, I disagree. There are no conventional network providers at all among my choices. A local telephone coop 5mbs @$90/mo, a rural wireless broadband service offering 3mbs down-1mbs up @$80/mo, and cell phone data (which is sketchy, but what I use now).
There will be plenty of domestic users of Starkink, supporting OCCUPY MARS with every key stroke. If nothing else, it will force the status quo to become competitive price-wise for their urban users. As well as provide new startup providers a source of service to distribute at a lower rate. It has been a long time coming, but SpaceX will level the playing field in this department and I suspect adoption will generate significant income for Starship development.
When I read the inner quote, I said to myself, "South Texas must be a developing area." Some of my customers can't even get cell coverage and must depend on satellite service. It stinks and I, for one, am eagerly waiting until I can buy (and recommend) Starlink service. Perhaps as early as next year. I am quite positive there are other rural areas across the USA and other places that just don't have much in the way of options.
Starlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.
As a rural Texas resident with ridiculously expensive choices for home internet, I disagree. There are no conventional network providers at all among my choices. A local telephone coop 5mbs @$90/mo, a rural wireless broadband service offering 3mbs down-1mbs up @$80/mo, and cell phone data (which is sketchy, but what I use now).
There will be plenty of domestic users of Starkink, supporting OCCUPY MARS with every key stroke. If nothing else, it will force the status quo to become competitive price-wise for their urban users. As well as provide new startup providers a source of service to distribute at a lower rate. It has been a long time coming, but SpaceX will level the playing field in this department and I suspect adoption will generate significant income for Starship development.
When I read the inner quote, I said to myself, "South Texas must be a developing area." Some of my customers can't even get cell coverage and must depend on satellite service. It stinks and I, for one, am eagerly waiting until I can buy (and recommend) Starlink service. Perhaps as early as next year. I am quite positive there are other rural areas across the USA and other places that just don't have much in the way of options.
Now that SpaceX has discovered that the United States can be fully covered by Starlink before equatorial regions, they plan to focus on covering the US as soon as possible.
My question is what happens when they subsequently cover the equatorial regions, won't that mean superfluous coverage of the United States?
[1]Now that SpaceX has discovered that the United States can be fully covered by Starlink before equatorial regions,
[2]they plan to focus on covering the US as soon as possible.
[3]My question is what happens when they subsequently cover the equatorial regions,
[4]won't that mean superfluous coverage of the United States?
Since SpaceX doesn't have any launch sites near the Equator, and their current sites are in the US, I am not sure if they have any good options
Starlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
These things matter. There are hard costs and limited funds. People shouldn't forget that.
Regarding financing for Starship, one word...
Starlink
If that progresses as planned, SpaceX will not have issues with financing going forward and optics will be less of an issue.
LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.
[1]Now that SpaceX has discovered that the United States can be fully covered by Starlink before equatorial regions,
[2]they plan to focus on covering the US as soon as possible.
[3]My question is what happens when they subsequently cover the equatorial regions,
[4]won't that mean superfluous coverage of the United States?
1 - The premise of this framing is not in evidence.
3 - As I read the filings, there is nothing that amounts to "subsequent coverage"
4 - No. The capacity for the high-density market latitudes will satisfy equatorial regions for the foreseeable future.Since SpaceX doesn't have any launch sites near the Equator, and their current sites are in the US, I am not sure if they have any good options
I don't think they need any. Not seeing any inclinations below 30 degrees. I could be missing something.
Assuming an architecture where the US is continuously covered with equally spaced satellites, both within each plane, and between planes, the equatorial regions will not have continuous coverage.
Assuming an architecture where the US is continuously covered with equally spaced satellites, both within each plane, and between planes, the equatorial regions will not have continuous coverage.
I don't think this is true. Why do you think this?
Maybe because if there were any gaps between the ground tracks of the satellites, service would be interrupted.Assuming an architecture where the US is continuously covered with equally spaced satellites, both within each plane, and between planes, the equatorial regions will not have continuous coverage.I don't think this is true. Why do you think this?
Starlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight.
These things matter. There are hard costs and limited funds. People shouldn't forget that.
Regarding financing for Starship, one word...
Starlink
If that progresses as planned, SpaceX will not have issues with financing going forward and optics will be less of an issue.
LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.
5G has a giant black eye (in the US anyway) due to the China/Huawei fiasco.
Exactly the opposite. U.S. carriers aren't using Huawei 5G.
Coverage gaps re: Starlink SpaceX 20 planes with 20 satellites continuous coverage between 28-60 ° latitude,
altitude 550 km, inclination 53°.
I don't doubt that there's a viable market for this service, assuming a reasonable price, but I wonder about how fast the service can be rolled out. Other constellations have been more slow-and-steady on adoption. Iridium is just now hitting its stride, 20 years later.
I don't doubt that there's a viable market for this service, assuming a reasonable price, but I wonder about how fast the service can be rolled out. Other constellations have been more slow-and-steady on adoption. Iridium is just now hitting its stride, 20 years later.
The obvious advantage for Starlink is near free launch services. I don't see Iridium getting this "feature".
Speed of adoption really depends on the price point . IMO Iridium took years because people didn't see the value initially.I don't doubt that there's a viable market for this service, assuming a reasonable price, but I wonder about how fast the service can be rolled out. Other constellations have been more slow-and-steady on adoption. Iridium is just now hitting its stride, 20 years later.
The obvious advantage for Starlink is near free launch services. I don't see Iridium getting this "feature".
My point is that even if Starlink could somehow teleport 42,000 satellites into orbit, the roll out and adoption rate for the service may be slower than we hope.
I don't doubt that there's a viable market for this service, assuming a reasonable price, but I wonder about how fast the service can be rolled out. Other constellations have been more slow-and-steady on adoption. Iridium is just now hitting its stride, 20 years later.
The obvious advantage for Starlink is near free launch services. I don't see Iridium getting this "feature".
My point is that even if Starlink could somehow teleport 42,000 satellites into orbit, the roll out and adoption rate for the service may be slower than we hope.
Coverage gaps re: Starlink SpaceX 20 planes with 20 satellites continuous coverage between 28-60 ° latitude,
altitude 550 km, inclination 53°.
Yes.
A constellation continuously covering CONUS can have equatorial coverage gaps.
A constellation continuously covering CONUS does not necessarily have equatorial coverage gaps.
The difference relates to Danderman's unstated premise.
Starlink as defined by SpaceX does have equatorial coverage gaps at the end of the initial phase.
Coverage gaps re: Starlink SpaceX 20 planes with 20 satellites continuous coverage between 28-60 ° latitude,
altitude 550 km, inclination 53°.
Yes.
A constellation continuously covering CONUS can have equatorial coverage gaps.
A constellation continuously covering CONUS does not necessarily have equatorial coverage gaps.
The difference relates to Danderman's unstated premise.
Let me add a third:
Starlink as defined by SpaceX does have equatorial coverage gaps at the end of the initial phase.
Yes, 1584 satellites in altitude 550 km covers latitude -60°-60°.
I'd like to see what ion engine is used in satellites.
I would be interested in Isp and thrust.
Is there a path, both technically and legally, from a 20x40 to the final constellation?
If you deploy an initial constellation with fewer (equally spaced) planes it is going to take a lot of delta-V (or a very long time) to add extra planes unless the smaller number of planes is a divisor of the final number of planes. This may be a justification for 72 rather than 24 planes in the final constellation.
I believe you can insert extra satellites in a plane relatively easily.
Also a minimal constellation with smaller margins may not give reliable coverage in practice, so it may be better to put things in the final orbits and accept predictable downtime rather than stretching things thin and getting unpredictable downtime.
Coverage gaps re: Starlink SpaceX 20 planes with 20 satellites continuous coverage between 28-60 ° latitude,
altitude 550 km, inclination 53°.
Yes.
A constellation continuously covering CONUS can have equatorial coverage gaps.
A constellation continuously covering CONUS does not necessarily have equatorial coverage gaps.
The difference relates to Danderman's unstated premise.
Starlink (and other constellations) will have to fight against 5G and well-established conventional network providers with deep pockets and strong political support. They are not going to go down without a fight. LEO constellations have an edge when it comes to niche markets like airline and naval broadband and developing countries, but that's not where the Mars colony kind of money is.Is it true that signals transmitted via Starlink would have less latency than land lines? If so, then the financial industry would use them. That would represent a huge market. Also, if streaming worked more efficiently via Starlink, that too would attract a lot of users. I don't know enough about 5G or Starlink's specs to compare them, but IIRC I've read an article stating that Starlink would have an advantage in those ways.
Yes.
#1: A constellation continuously covering CONUS can have equatorial coverage gaps.
#2: A constellation continuously covering CONUS does not necessarily have equatorial coverage gaps.
The difference relates to Danderman's unstated premise.
Assuming a constellation that stops deployment when the US has no coverage gaps, there would be gaps in Equatorial coverage.
That’s what the animations shows, if you don’t understand. There are obvious gaps at the Equator in the SpaceX baseline architecture.
Just because they intend to start offering service in some locations before all of the satellites are on orbit, that does not mean they intend to stop launching when the US is covered. I really don't understand why some people think that. They intend to keep launching more satellites until they have coverage of most of the Earth (except near the poles). At that point they'll have to decide which shell to start launching next (assuming the business is still looking promising).In particular, ships, planes, and the military are all obvious target markets, and all need to operate near the equator. So I'm certain they will fill any gaps as quickly as possible.
Just because they intend to start offering service in some locations before all of the satellites are on orbit, that does not mean they intend to stop launching when the US is covered. I really don't understand why some people think that. They intend to keep launching more satellites until they have coverage of most of the Earth (except near the poles). At that point they'll have to decide which shell to start launching next (assuming the business is still looking promising).In particular, ships, planes, and the military are all obvious target markets, and all need to operate near the equator. So I'm certain they will fill any gaps as quickly as possible.
Just because they intend to start offering service in some locations before all of the satellites are on orbit, that does not mean they intend to stop launching when the US is covered. I really don't understand why some people think that. They intend to keep launching more satellites until they have coverage of most of the Earth (except near the poles). At that point they'll have to decide which shell to start launching next (assuming the business is still looking promising).In particular, ships, planes, and the military are all obvious target markets, and all need to operate near the equator. So I'm certain they will fill any gaps as quickly as possible.
...
@Elon Musk @elonmusk
Replying to @Erdayastronaut and @DiscoverMag
Then drop a few dozen modified Starlink satellites from empty engine bays with ~1600 Isp, MR 2. ...
After the first Starlink launch there was a great deal of whining, mostly from competitors, about space debris and SpaceX should slow down deployment.
The first set of Starlink was set to 90% demise on re-entry. I expected SpaceX to improve over time and I was surprised when on the next launch they will 100% demise on re-entry.
Has anyone heard demise on re-entry numbers on the other LEO satellites?
After the first Starlink launch there was a great deal of whining, mostly from competitors, about space debris and SpaceX should slow down deployment.
The first set of Starlink was set to 90% demise on re-entry. I expected SpaceX to improve over time and I was surprised when on the next launch they will 100% demise on re-entry.
Has anyone heard demise on re-entry numbers on the other LEO satellites?
At one point Greg Wyler testified in congress indicating that OneWeb would use a graveyard orbit for satellites taken out of service. I do not recall anything about reentry timelines. Personally, I don't like the idea of a graveyard for satellites, I would rather they were de-orbited.
There seems to be some misconceptions about the constellation. They aren't putting satellites in some random number of orbital planes. The planes are defined in the documentation they've filed with the FCC. Currently they are approved for 24 planes at 550km. They want to change that to 72 planes. If they get the 72 plane configuration approved, satellites already on orbit in the 24 plane configuration may need to be moved or they'll need to file more paperwork asking for approval to keep them in the current orbits.
Just because they intend to start offering service in some locations before all of the satellites are on orbit, that does not mean they intend to stop launching when the US is covered. I really don't understand why some people think that. They intend to keep launching more satellites until they have coverage of most of the Earth (except near the poles). At that point they'll have to decide which shell to start launching next (assuming the business is still looking promising).
At one point Greg Wyler testified in congress indicating that OneWeb would use a graveyard orbit for satellites taken out of service. I do not recall anything about reentry timelines. Personally, I don't like the idea of a graveyard for satellites, I would rather they were de-orbited.
Launch to 450-500 km altitude
Preliminary IOT and drifting to adjacent planes as necessary
20-week ascent to 1,200 km altitude operational orbit
Five-year nominal operational mission
Decommissioning and extraction to 1,100 km circular
One-year deorbit campaign to lower perigee below 200 km for rapid re-entry
Complete structural demise in upper atmosphere (preliminary analysis)
SpaceX studied the constellation design and decided to use 53 degree inclination to initiate service. No one else forced them to choose that. They think that is a good choice for the coverage they wish to provide. There is not a problem with having satellites closer together when they are over more populated regions. That is by design. They want more satellites in view over highly populated latitudes.
At one point Greg Wyler testified in congress indicating that OneWeb would use a graveyard orbit for satellites taken out of service. I do not recall anything about reentry timelines. Personally, I don't like the idea of a graveyard for satellites, I would rather they were de-orbited.
According to this document (https://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/hlf/HLF2017/presentations/Day3/Special_Session/Presentation2.pdf) OneWeb does plan to deorbit.
Launch to 450-500 km altitude
Preliminary IOT and drifting to adjacent planes as necessary
20-week ascent to 1,200 km altitude operational orbit
Five-year nominal operational mission
Decommissioning and extraction to 1,100 km circular
One-year deorbit campaign to lower perigee below 200 km for rapid re-entry
Complete structural demise in upper atmosphere (preliminary analysis)
A 53 degree orbit happens to be inefficient for coverage of equatorial regions.
There's already a big polar market. A lot of airliner flight are polar routes.Just because they intend to start offering service in some locations before all of the satellites are on orbit, that does not mean they intend to stop launching when the US is covered. I really don't understand why some people think that. They intend to keep launching more satellites until they have coverage of most of the Earth (except near the poles). At that point they'll have to decide which shell to start launching next (assuming the business is still looking promising).In particular, ships, planes, and the military are all obvious target markets, and all need to operate near the equator. So I'm certain they will fill any gaps as quickly as possible.
...and the poles, which are becoming an area of international contention as ice diminishes. If the military's operations at the North Pole increase, and they will, then StarLink and other megas will need to cover them.
Equatorial regions will be PLENTY covered if SpaceX wants to avoid losing their FCC license (ie when they’ve launched thousands of satellites). That’s a non-issue, IMHO.
Equatorial regions will be PLENTY covered if SpaceX wants to avoid losing their FCC license (ie when they’ve launched thousands of satellites). That’s a non-issue, IMHO.
I don't think their FCC or ITU filings actually require full equatorial coverage. They'll need that coverage if they want to go after markets like IFC and maritime it because otherwise they'll have unreliable service for some markets. There are more planes and ships going through the equatorial region than there are at high latitudes.
I think Oneweb is going to be pushing hard for those customers at higher latitudes as they start launching their satellites. With their orbit they get polar coverage first and could have a lengthy lead over SpaceX in those areas. (In addition to Canada, there are plenty of customers in Northern Europe.)
I think Oneweb is going to be pushing hard for those customers at higher latitudes as they start launching their satellites. With their orbit they get polar coverage first and could have a lengthy lead over SpaceX in those areas. (In addition to Canada, there are plenty of customers in Northern Europe.)
I think Oneweb is going to be pushing hard for those customers at higher latitudes as they start launching their satellites. With their orbit they get polar coverage first and could have a lengthy lead over SpaceX in those areas. (In addition to Canada, there are plenty of customers in Northern Europe.)
What part of "Northern Europe" would that be?
Because if you refer to countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark than you might be in for a surprise. Those northern European countries already have an extremely high coverage of high-speed internet connections.
I think Oneweb is going to be pushing hard for those customers at higher latitudes as they start launching their satellites. With their orbit they get polar coverage first and could have a lengthy lead over SpaceX in those areas. (In addition to Canada, there are plenty of customers in Northern Europe.)
What part of "Northern Europe" would that be?
Because if you refer to countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark than you might be in for a surprise. Those northern European countries already have an extremely high coverage of high-speed internet connections.
My kids in Ireland have 500mb broadband at the house for €40/month so doubt Starlink would be of interest. But for me on the boat, I'd love Starlink. Current Iridium Go is just too expensive and way too slow.
Also a lot of rural homes, outside the main urban centers decent broadband can be a challenge. A decent, cost effective Starlink offering could be very appealing.I think Oneweb is going to be pushing hard for those customers at higher latitudes as they start launching their satellites. With their orbit they get polar coverage first and could have a lengthy lead over SpaceX in those areas. (In addition to Canada, there are plenty of customers in Northern Europe.)
What part of "Northern Europe" would that be?
Because if you refer to countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark than you might be in for a surprise. Those northern European countries already have an extremely high coverage of high-speed internet connections.
My kids in Ireland have 500mb broadband at the house for €40/month so doubt Starlink would be of interest. But for me on the boat, I'd love Starlink. Current Iridium Go is just too expensive and way too slow.
Also a lot of rural homes, outside the main urban centers decent broadband can be a challenge. A decent, cost effective Starlink offering could be very appealing.I think Oneweb is going to be pushing hard for those customers at higher latitudes as they start launching their satellites. With their orbit they get polar coverage first and could have a lengthy lead over SpaceX in those areas. (In addition to Canada, there are plenty of customers in Northern Europe.)
What part of "Northern Europe" would that be?
Because if you refer to countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark than you might be in for a surprise. Those northern European countries already have an extremely high coverage of high-speed internet connections.
Globally there will be a huge market. However, some countries that really need it, Russia, China, Iran etc, don’t want their citizens getting access to information.
Could they (from a technical perspective) block Starlink signals?Starlink will require a pizza-box sized antenna, which would be difficult to smuggle into a country and be difficult to replicate locally. Also, one would presumably need some sort of account with Starlink to be able to use the service, and I doubt that Elon wants to intentionally push against the governments of some of the largest economies of the world, so I don't see Starlink granting accounts in countries where the service is illegal.
I think Oneweb is going to be pushing hard for those customers at higher latitudes as they start launching their satellites. With their orbit they get polar coverage first and could have a lengthy lead over SpaceX in those areas. (In addition to Canada, there are plenty of customers in Northern Europe.)
What part of "Northern Europe" would that be?
Because if you refer to countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark than you might be in for a surprise. Those northern European countries already have an extremely high coverage of high-speed internet connections.
It won't really be a matter of accounts. The first thing a user station does when it requests a connection is to send it's coordinates. If they're in a denied area, they'll never be granted a connection.Could they (from a technical perspective) block Starlink signals?Starlink will require a pizza-box sized antenna, which would be difficult to smuggle into a country and be difficult to replicate locally. Also, one would presumably need some sort of account with Starlink to be able to use the service, and I doubt that Elon wants to intentionally push against the governments of some of the largest economies of the world, so I don't see Starlink granting accounts in countries where the service is illegal.
In other words, no technical blocking of signals is needed for a (reasonably powerful) country to prevent its citizens from using the service.
I think Oneweb is going to be pushing hard for those customers at higher latitudes as they start launching their satellites. With their orbit they get polar coverage first and could have a lengthy lead over SpaceX in those areas. (In addition to Canada, there are plenty of customers in Northern Europe.)
What part of "Northern Europe" would that be?
Because if you refer to countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark than you might be in for a surprise. Those northern European countries already have an extremely high coverage of high-speed internet connections.
Planes are typically located far above the ground, which gives them a large field of view to the sky. Also, a low angle doesnt hurt as much because the plane is above most of the air already. So unless the plane goes over the pole, they will always see a sat with good enough signal. Question is, are the sats capable of providing large angle beams or not?It can actually be pretty hard to find a good spot for an antenna on a ship. There are usually several antennas that all want to be the highest thing on the boat. Most of the trouble is the size of the ku class antennas precluding top of the mast mounting, so pizza boxes would make it a lot better. They can always find some comms tech dumb enough to climb the mast if it breaks.
Ships are somewhat more tricky as they are typically operated on sea level .. But there are usually not many trees obstructing the view to the horizon, which gives them better coverage than most land based systems.
But if I'm understanding correctly, seeing three sats wouldn't be a problem for this constellation, even in the first 1,600 sat phase.There might still be areas near the equator with fewer than three at times. There's a lot I don't know. The antenna controllers might be good enough to plot blockages after installation by using dropouts, so the sat going behind a tree isn't a surprise. And even present systems let you program permanent blockages on boats in so they can do a planned handoff instead of unexpectedly losing the signal.
Equatorial regions will be PLENTY covered if SpaceX wants to avoid losing their FCC license (ie when they’ve launched thousands of satellites). That’s a non-issue, IMHO.
I don't think their FCC or ITU filings actually require full equatorial coverage. They'll need that coverage if they want to go after markets like IFC and maritime it because otherwise they'll have unreliable service for some markets. There are more planes and ships going through the equatorial region than there are at high latitudes.
Planes are typically located far above the ground, which gives them a large field of view to the sky. Also, a low angle doesnt hurt as much because the plane is above most of the air already. So unless the plane goes over the pole, they will always see a sat with good enough signal. Question is, are the sats capable of providing large angle beams or not?It can actually be pretty hard to find a good spot for an antenna on a ship. There are usually several antennas that all want to be the highest thing on the boat. Most of the trouble is the size of the ku class antennas precluding top of the mast mounting, so pizza boxes would make it a lot better. They can always find some comms tech dumb enough to climb the mast if it breaks.
Ships are somewhat more tricky as they are typically operated on sea level .. But there are usually not many trees obstructing the view to the horizon, which gives them better coverage than most land based systems.
Ships, trees and such are one reason why I think the numbers for real full coverage are optimistic. You'd probably need at least three sats available to prevent cutouts since there will almost always be blockages.
My kids in Ireland have 500mb broadband at the house for €40/month so doubt Starlink would be of interest. But for me on the boat, I'd love Starlink. Current Iridium Go is just too expensive and way too slow.
Also a lot of rural homes, outside the main urban centers decent broadband can be a challenge. A decent, cost effective Starlink offering could be very appealing.I think Oneweb is going to be pushing hard for those customers at higher latitudes as they start launching their satellites. With their orbit they get polar coverage first and could have a lengthy lead over SpaceX in those areas. (In addition to Canada, there are plenty of customers in Northern Europe.)
What part of "Northern Europe" would that be?
Because if you refer to countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark than you might be in for a surprise. Those northern European countries already have an extremely high coverage of high-speed internet connections.
Globally there will be a huge market. However, some countries that really need it, Russia, China, Iran etc, don’t want their citizens getting access to information.
Equatorial Africa and South America, Southern Asia and Oceanana (giving literally some degrees of latitude) are not minor markets. The image of indigenous peoples living in grass huts and knowing little of the outside world is 50 years out of date. In that 50 years these populations have boomed.
Government attitudes may stand in the way of direct uncontrolled individual or business access but StarLink can be configured to service local or regional ISP’s and appear little different than an under sea cable head.
Planes are typically located far above the ground, which gives them a large field of view to the sky. Also, a low angle doesnt hurt as much because the plane is above most of the air already. So unless the plane goes over the pole, they will always see a sat with good enough signal. Question is, are the sats capable of providing large angle beams or not?It can actually be pretty hard to find a good spot for an antenna on a ship. There are usually several antennas that all want to be the highest thing on the boat. Most of the trouble is the size of the ku class antennas precluding top of the mast mounting, so pizza boxes would make it a lot better. They can always find some comms tech dumb enough to climb the mast if it breaks.
Ships are somewhat more tricky as they are typically operated on sea level .. But there are usually not many trees obstructing the view to the horizon, which gives them better coverage than most land based systems.
Ships, trees and such are one reason why I think the numbers for real full coverage are optimistic. You'd probably need at least three sats available to prevent cutouts since there will almost always be blockages.
Not the right thread, forum or anything else, but the idea of 100% global coverage makes me uneasy when I think of some places. I get a strong feeling that something precious and irreplaceable will die the day the last untouched parts of the planet cease.Equatorial regions will be PLENTY covered if SpaceX wants to avoid losing their FCC license (ie when they’ve launched thousands of satellites). That’s a non-issue, IMHO.
I don't think their FCC or ITU filings actually require full equatorial coverage. They'll need that coverage if they want to go after markets like IFC and maritime it because otherwise they'll have unreliable service for some markets. There are more planes and ships going through the equatorial region than there are at high latitudes.
To add to this...
Equatorial Africa and South America, Southern Asia and Oceanana (giving literally some degrees of latitude) are not minor markets. The image of indigenous peoples living in grass huts and knowing little of the outside world is 50 years out of date. In that 50 years these populations have boomed.
Government attitudes may stand in the way of direct uncontrolled individual or business access but StarLink can be configured to service local or regional ISP’s and appear little different than an under sea cable head.
Nobody but the most connectivity deprived are interested in internet with dropouts.
Phil
I’m thinking that other than nice stable cruise ships, heavy whether would make holding lock a problem. One big unmoving GEO sat could be enough of an an advantage, especially when latency really isn’t important, that this market will not go to StarLink.
Starlink's base stations use an electronically steered antenna. A quality electronic gyro mounted on it should help it maintain pointing. If they can keep a dish on a bus pointed at satellite while driving down the highway, on a boat it should be no problem with an electronically steered antenna. I don't even think it would add more than $20 in parts. The software already has to continiously calculate a new pointing direction due to the satellite motion. Adding in changing angle of the antenna just takes knowing what is happening to it.I’m thinking that other than nice stable cruise ships, heavy whether would make holding lock a problem. One big unmoving GEO sat could be enough of an an advantage, especially when latency really isn’t important, that this market will not go to StarLink.
That's a good discussion that I don't recall seeing. I keep coming back around from time-to-time to the weather impact in the type seen with stuff like Dish and DirectTV.
Is there a general thought on how this impacts the broader retail consumer market irrespective of the challenging commercial environments? I guess I'd defaulted to thinking that must not be too big an issue or it would be a major impact to an effective business.
Not the right thread, forum or anything else, but the idea of 100% global coverage makes me uneasy when I think of some places. I get a strong feeling that something precious and irreplaceable will die the day the last untouched parts of the planet cease.It's going to happen sooner or later. Starlink is more strands in the web. I've long advocated for free unrestricted international long distance calls because when people know each other, it is much harder for their leaders to make war on each other. Then there is the "like" button that throws a whole monkey wrench into things.
Starlink's base stations use an electronically steered antenna. A quality electronic gyro mounted on it should help it maintain pointing. If they can keep a dish on a bus pointed at satellite while driving down the highway, on a boat it should be no problem with an electronically steered antenna. I don't even think it would add more than $20 in parts. The software already has to continiously calculate a new pointing direction due to the satellite motion. Adding in changing angle of the antenna just takes knowing what is happening to it.
The speed of an LEO sat across the sky is completely insignificant compared to a moving ship antenna. A phased array integrated with smartphone class inertial sensors will make keeping a lock easy in any conditions. Look at the big sat domes on ships. They never have a complete lack of blockages and take 30 seconds at least to move to a different sat when the boat is moving around. I'll bet the Starlink antennas will get changing sats down to a second or less. And not all of the geo setups have more than one visible sat they can use.Planes are typically located far above the ground, which gives them a large field of view to the sky. Also, a low angle doesnt hurt as much because the plane is above most of the air already. So unless the plane goes over the pole, they will always see a sat with good enough signal. Question is, are the sats capable of providing large angle beams or not?It can actually be pretty hard to find a good spot for an antenna on a ship. There are usually several antennas that all want to be the highest thing on the boat. Most of the trouble is the size of the ku class antennas precluding top of the mast mounting, so pizza boxes would make it a lot better. They can always find some comms tech dumb enough to climb the mast if it breaks.
Ships are somewhat more tricky as they are typically operated on sea level .. But there are usually not many trees obstructing the view to the horizon, which gives them better coverage than most land based systems.
Ships, trees and such are one reason why I think the numbers for real full coverage are optimistic. You'd probably need at least three sats available to prevent cutouts since there will almost always be blockages.
I’m thinking that other than nice stable cruise ships, heavy whether would make holding lock a problem. One big unmoving GEO sat could be enough of an an advantage, especially when latency really isn’t important, that this market will not go to StarLink.
I think Oneweb is going to be pushing hard for those customers at higher latitudes as they start launching their satellites. With their orbit they get polar coverage first and could have a lengthy lead over SpaceX in those areas. (In addition to Canada, there are plenty of customers in Northern Europe.)
What part of "Northern Europe" would that be?
Because if you refer to countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark than you might be in for a surprise. Those northern European countries already have an extremely high coverage of high-speed internet connections.
The important point about other countries across that board is that the unit of measurement" for "plenty" might be something on the order of a 100 Kilocustomers generating a very round $50-$100M/yr revenue at $50-$100/mo for service.
While all of Europe (just like the US) and lots of elsewhere are going to have extermely high coverage of quality broadband, there are going to be plenty of rural folks with sub-par connectivity [1]. Rolling these widely spread customers into accounting bundles of 100 Kilocustomers by avoiding last-mile pipe or cellular is what is meant by "plenty of customers".
Footnote 1: I'd be happy to be corrected if the Nordics have beat-back the last-mile rural problem to be point it's ineffective to address that market.
Being able to scan the sky for alternate sats with speed should help with rain fades. They usually don't affect the entire sky and can be treated as just another obstruction. If the system gets smart enough, it could even learn to spot storms from above by unexpected signal strength drops in certain geographical areas, and plan links accordingly.
I'm asking about rain impact on connectivity. Dish and DirectTV tend to cut-out some during weather unless things have improved.
What altitude are Iridium sats at? They are LEO far as I understand it. This is the antenna I have - Smaller than milk bottle and works on a pitching deck. If Starlink can do the same, with a reasonably sized antenna then it would be perfect.
The speed of an LEO sat across the sky is completely insignificant compared to a moving ship antenna. A phased array integrated with smartphone class inertial sensors will make keeping a lock easy in any conditions. Look at the big sat domes on ships. They never have a complete lack of blockages and take 30 seconds at least to move to a different sat when the boat is moving around. I'll bet the Starlink antennas will get changing sats down to a second or less. And not all of the geo setups have more than one visible sat they can use.With enough processing power an antenna could link to multiple satellites at once. The first it contacts can tell it where the others are.
Iridium is pretty much an old GSM system in the sky, and any 1.6 Ghz antenna would have worked if it was pointed right. Harder to do with a moving target. Most antennas weren't exactly omnidirectional since you need to worry more than two dimensions, but lower gain overhead didn't hurt much since the sats there are closer. There were actually some high gain tracking dishes, but rare.What altitude are Iridium sats at? They are LEO far as I understand it. This is the antenna I have - Smaller than milk bottle and works on a pitching deck. If Starlink can do the same, with a reasonably sized antenna then it would be perfect.
What kind of Iridium antenna does any tracking at all? I thought they were all omnidirectional.
Could they (from a technical perspective) block Starlink signals?Starlink will require a pizza-box sized antenna, which would be difficult to smuggle into a country and be difficult to replicate locally. Also, one would presumably need some sort of account with Starlink to be able to use the service, and I doubt that Elon wants to intentionally push against the governments of some of the largest economies of the world, so I don't see Starlink granting accounts in countries where the service is illegal.
In other words, no technical blocking of signals is needed for a (reasonably powerful) country to prevent its citizens from using the service.
Being able to scan the sky for alternate sats with speed should help with rain fades. They usually don't affect the entire sky and can be treated as just another obstruction.
Or is it more like the downpour degrades signal more uniformly but some get through better than others?This. BTW Hurricanes are notoriously uneven, and rain usually falls diagonally due to the winds present in the storm. Using a satellite at 45 deg elevation may be a lot better than one overhead. That is because it punches out the side of the storm.
Every Starlink dish will probably include GPS receivers and connections won't be allowed where they're not allowed.Could they (from a technical perspective) block Starlink signals?Starlink will require a pizza-box sized antenna, which would be difficult to smuggle into a country and be difficult to replicate locally. Also, one would presumably need some sort of account with Starlink to be able to use the service, and I doubt that Elon wants to intentionally push against the governments of some of the largest economies of the world, so I don't see Starlink granting accounts in countries where the service is illegal.
In other words, no technical blocking of signals is needed for a (reasonably powerful) country to prevent its citizens from using the service.
Satellite dishes are regularly smuggled into Iran or other middle eastern countries that ban these types of imports. If someone can smuggle a satellite dish I don't see why a pizza box sized starlink receiver would be difficult. One thing about smugglers, they always find a way.
Being able to scan the sky for alternate sats with speed should help with rain fades. They usually don't affect the entire sky and can be treated as just another obstruction.
So Nomadd, am I reading it correctly that "rain fade" is less about the rain in general than the nature of the signal with respect to how the rain is falling? Such that for example in a hurricane where the downpour is widespread, it's the (for lack of a better word) "phase" of the signal through the downpour to the receiver rather than the volume of rain itself. So a signal 90 degree left or right (from the problem connection) might be fine?
Or is it more like the downpour degrades signal more uniformly but some get through better than others?
Sorry for the elementary comms questions, but I'm interested.
Every Starlink dish will probably include GPS receivers and connections won't be allowed where they're not allowed.Could they (from a technical perspective) block Starlink signals?Starlink will require a pizza-box sized antenna, which would be difficult to smuggle into a country and be difficult to replicate locally. Also, one would presumably need some sort of account with Starlink to be able to use the service, and I doubt that Elon wants to intentionally push against the governments of some of the largest economies of the world, so I don't see Starlink granting accounts in countries where the service is illegal.
In other words, no technical blocking of signals is needed for a (reasonably powerful) country to prevent its citizens from using the service.
Satellite dishes are regularly smuggled into Iran or other middle eastern countries that ban these types of imports. If someone can smuggle a satellite dish I don't see why a pizza box sized starlink receiver would be difficult. One thing about smugglers, they always find a way.
>
>
SpaceX will care what China thinks. Countries like Iran and Syria not so much. I could see the US government encouraging unrestricted Internet access for certain countries.
Every Starlink dish will probably include GPS receivers and connections won't be allowed where they're not allowed.Could they (from a technical perspective) block Starlink signals?Starlink will require a pizza-box sized antenna, which would be difficult to smuggle into a country and be difficult to replicate locally. Also, one would presumably need some sort of account with Starlink to be able to use the service, and I doubt that Elon wants to intentionally push against the governments of some of the largest economies of the world, so I don't see Starlink granting accounts in countries where the service is illegal.
In other words, no technical blocking of signals is needed for a (reasonably powerful) country to prevent its citizens from using the service.
Satellite dishes are regularly smuggled into Iran or other middle eastern countries that ban these types of imports. If someone can smuggle a satellite dish I don't see why a pizza box sized starlink receiver would be difficult. One thing about smugglers, they always find a way.
I interpreted that as:Every Starlink dish will probably include GPS receivers and connections won't be allowed where they're not allowed.Are you saying some countries ban GPS receivers? No snark here. I’m really asking.
Not so elementary and kind of out of my league. It might just be a matter of more water in some directions than others. I just know that when we were on several satellites at once they rarely all quit at the same time. It did seem worse at higher dish elevations, even though they were going through the least amount of air, so the direction of the rain might have been a factor.Being able to scan the sky for alternate sats with speed should help with rain fades. They usually don't affect the entire sky and can be treated as just another obstruction.
So Nomadd, am I reading it correctly that "rain fade" is less about the rain in general than the nature of the signal with respect to how the rain is falling? Such that for example in a hurricane where the downpour is widespread, it's the (for lack of a better word) "phase" of the signal through the downpour to the receiver rather than the volume of rain itself. So a signal 90 degree left or right (from the problem connection) might be fine?
Or is it more like the downpour degrades signal more uniformly but some get through better than others?
Sorry for the elementary comms questions, but I'm interested.
Exactly. Most geo connections are already like that. You have to send coordinates to get a connection so they can set the time slot for your transmitted data, and if those coordinates are somewhere you're not allowed to use the service, you won't get a link.I interpreted that as:Every Starlink dish will probably include GPS receivers and connections won't be allowed where they're not allowed.Are you saying some countries ban GPS receivers? No snark here. I’m really asking.
Every Starlink dish will probably include GPS receivers and connections won't be allowed [by Starlink] where [Starlink is] not allowed [to operate].
I think Oneweb is going to be pushing hard for those customers at higher latitudes as they start launching their satellites. With their orbit they get polar coverage first and could have a lengthy lead over SpaceX in those areas. (In addition to Canada, there are plenty of customers in Northern Europe.)
What part of "Northern Europe" would that be?
Because if you refer to countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark than you might be in for a surprise. Those northern European countries already have an extremely high coverage of high-speed internet connections.
I was also thinking airlines and shipping companies going through those areas.
A GPS receiver adds cost, and there isn't a need. Mechanical slats are moving parts that can wear out, and seize. It's simple enough to have separate transceivers* for each antenna patch, and read the timing deltas for timing pulses from the satellite**. This requires a fast clock distributed to all transceiver chips, but that's easy. Those timing deltas can then be used when steering the beam for talking back to the satellite. With each message received, update the timing deltas. It isn't like these need pinpoint accuracy. Given the size of the pizza box, the beam produced will be at least a couple degrees wide. Talking to multiple satellites would require multiple transceivers per patch, but again, that is just chip space. They have to do it for the units on the satellites. BTW, I could warp the antenna PCB and still use this technique. The only time this doesn't work is if the antenna is changing it's physical orientation fast. On a boat I don't think it could change fast enough. A car turning a corner likely wouldn't be fast enough, but a pothole could. Having a fast CPU to calculate new timing deltas would be good. Once communications are established the satellite can tell it's orbit, and the orbits of those around it. From the orbit data and the motion of the vehicle new deltas can be calculated on the fly.Every Starlink dish will probably include GPS receivers and connections won't be allowed where they're not allowed.Could they (from a technical perspective) block Starlink signals?Starlink will require a pizza-box sized antenna, which would be difficult to smuggle into a country and be difficult to replicate locally. Also, one would presumably need some sort of account with Starlink to be able to use the service, and I doubt that Elon wants to intentionally push against the governments of some of the largest economies of the world, so I don't see Starlink granting accounts in countries where the service is illegal.
In other words, no technical blocking of signals is needed for a (reasonably powerful) country to prevent its citizens from using the service.
Satellite dishes are regularly smuggled into Iran or other middle eastern countries that ban these types of imports. If someone can smuggle a satellite dish I don't see why a pizza box sized starlink receiver would be difficult. One thing about smugglers, they always find a way.
As in the Original Applications, all Ku-band downlink spot beams on each SpaceX satellite
are independently steerable over the full field of view of the Earth. Yet, user terminals (and
gateways during the initial deployment phase) communicate only with satellites above a minimum
elevation angle. In the very early phases of constellation deployment and as SpaceX first initiates
service, this angle may be as low as 25 degrees, but this will return to 40 degrees as the
constellation is deployed more fully. Consequently, as shown in Figure A.3.1-1 below, each
satellite operating at an altitude of 550 km in the shell being modified will provide service only up
to 56.55 degrees away from boresight (nadir) at service initiation and up to 44.85 degrees at full
deployment. These satellites can provide service up to approximately ±57° latitude; coverage to
service points beyond this range will be provided by satellites included in SpaceX’s polar orbits.
From the FCC filings:QuoteAs in the Original Applications, all Ku-band downlink spot beams on each SpaceX satellite
are independently steerable over the full field of view of the Earth. Yet, user terminals (and
gateways during the initial deployment phase) communicate only with satellites above a minimum
elevation angle. In the very early phases of constellation deployment and as SpaceX first initiates
service, this angle may be as low as 25 degrees, but this will return to 40 degrees as the
constellation is deployed more fully. Consequently, as shown in Figure A.3.1-1 below, each
satellite operating at an altitude of 550 km in the shell being modified will provide service only up
to 56.55 degrees away from boresight (nadir) at service initiation and up to 44.85 degrees at full
deployment. These satellites can provide service up to approximately ±57° latitude; coverage to
service points beyond this range will be provided by satellites included in SpaceX’s polar orbits.
From the FCC filings:Does the last sentence really mean there will be sat’s in polar orbit?QuoteAs in the Original Applications, all Ku-band downlink spot beams on each SpaceX satellite
are independently steerable over the full field of view of the Earth. Yet, user terminals (and
gateways during the initial deployment phase) communicate only with satellites above a minimum
elevation angle. In the very early phases of constellation deployment and as SpaceX first initiates
service, this angle may be as low as 25 degrees, but this will return to 40 degrees as the
constellation is deployed more fully. Consequently, as shown in Figure A.3.1-1 below, each
satellite operating at an altitude of 550 km in the shell being modified will provide service only up
to 56.55 degrees away from boresight (nadir) at service initiation and up to 44.85 degrees at full
deployment. These satellites can provide service up to approximately ±57° latitude; coverage to
service points beyond this range will be provided by satellites included in SpaceX’s polar orbits.
So if I read that diagram correctly, each satellite can cover a circle in excess of 500km in diameter.
So if I read that diagram correctly, each satellite can cover a circle in excess of 500km in diameter.
941 km in radius. They have permission to beam as low as 25 degrees above horizon (the right diagram) at least in the US initially. They will switch to 40 degrees/574 km radius when they launch more satellites.
I haven't checked the size of the coverage circles on this, but it gives a good representation of how coverage might fill in over time. You want a latitude to have continuous coverage before you start offering service there. Continuous coverage will start in a band around 50 degrees latitude and move towards the equator as more sats are launched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k73AFybi7zk
What do you mean by "orbit"? The video shows satellite planes in a 53 degree inclination. The Earth rotates under these planes, so if you don't have complete coverage at your latitude you will eventually rotate under a spot with no coverage.
Some weird comment from CEO of Arianespace regarding Starlink: SpaceX's mega-constellation of Starlink satellites could result in a 'Wild West' scenario in space, says Ariane 6 manufacturer CEO (https://www.businessinsider.com/arianespace-ceo-elon-musk-colonize-low-earth-orbit-2019-11?r=US&IR=T&utm_source=reddit.com)
Some weird comment from CEO of Arianespace regarding Starlink: SpaceX's mega-constellation of Starlink satellites could result in a 'Wild West' scenario in space, says Ariane 6 manufacturer CEO (https://www.businessinsider.com/arianespace-ceo-elon-musk-colonize-low-earth-orbit-2019-11?r=US&IR=T&utm_source=reddit.com)he is a perfect example of why the European space program is brain dead.
There is a campaign starting in France at the highest level of the French government on the topic : Faut-il restreindre l'acces a l'espace ? (Should access to space be restricted ?). The clever guys at the head of France are going to lobby for some kind of inter national authority which would deliver launch permits worldwide. They want to make it a European initiative first, of course in the name of environment, risk of debris, protection of astronomy and end up with a kind of international treaty establishing this authority.
For the time being it is low signal but I expect it to become more and more public. And - it is fair game - they will jump on any mishap, space collision for instance, which might happen to make their case.
I can imagine the reaction of the US, Russia, China to such a proposal ...
Bottom line is that since they feel they cannot afford to compete they want to create legal impediments. And of course they probably don't take Starship seriously with its multiple launches a day. Imagine what they would do if they did.
There is a campaign starting in France at the highest level of the French government on the topic : Faut-il restreindre l'acces a l'espace ? (Should access to space be restricted ?). The clever guys at the head of France are going to lobby for some kind of inter national authority which would deliver launch permits worldwide. They want to make it a European initiative first, of course in the name of environment, risk of debris, protection of astronomy and end up with a kind of international treaty establishing this authority.
For the time being it is low signal but I expect it to become more and more public. And - it is fair game - they will jump on any mishap, space collision for instance, which might happen to make their case.
I can imagine the reaction of the US, Russia, China to such a proposal ...
Bottom line is that since they feel they cannot afford to compete they want to create legal impediments. And of course they probably don't take Starship seriously with its multiple launches a day. Imagine what they would do if they did.
There is a campaign starting in France at the highest level of the French government on the topic : Faut-il restreindre l'acces a l'espace ? (Should access to space be restricted ?). The clever guys at the head of France are going to lobby for some kind of inter national authority which would deliver launch permits worldwide. They want to make it a European initiative first, of course in the name of environment, risk of debris, protection of astronomy and end up with a kind of international treaty establishing this authority.
For the time being it is low signal but I expect it to become more and more public. And - it is fair game - they will jump on any mishap, space collision for instance, which might happen to make their case.
I can imagine the reaction of the US, Russia, China to such a proposal ...
Bottom line is that since they feel they cannot afford to compete they want to create legal impediments. And of course they probably don't take Starship seriously with its multiple launches a day. Imagine what they would do if they did.
There is a campaign starting in France at the highest level of the French government on the topic : Faut-il restreindre l'acces a l'espace ? (Should access to space be restricted ?). The clever guys at the head of France are going to lobby for some kind of inter national authority which would deliver launch permits worldwide. They want to make it a European initiative first, of course in the name of environment, risk of debris, protection of astronomy and end up with a kind of international treaty establishing this authority.
For the time being it is low signal but I expect it to become more and more public. And - it is fair game - they will jump on any mishap, space collision for instance, which might happen to make their case.
I can imagine the reaction of the US, Russia, China to such a proposal ...
Bottom line is that since they feel they cannot afford to compete they want to create legal impediments. And of course they probably don't take Starship seriously with its multiple launches a day. Imagine what they would do if they did.
Sooner or later something like this will happen. It was very obvious that starlink has a potential threat to national sovereignity of world countries.
Very likely France it is looking for support not only in Europe but also in Russia, India and China.
This is one of things i consider would make fail Starlink. Specifically Starlink because Elon Musk has little knowing or even no comprension about politics.
A certain country recently shut down the Internet for five days in order to manage political unrest. They could do that because their Internet communicates with the outer world in a handful of discrete points. You cannot do that with Starlink, or maybe with expensive jamming devices.
Countries wanting to control Internet access will make Starlink equipment illegal. Depending on the government, the penalties could be severe.
North America alone will be a huge market.
Starlink mappings are getting much better with 22 having RMS values < 2 km. Best matches at start/end of train (best separation). Some so good they overlap in attached images (green = TLE, white = SupTLE).
https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1199821305563860993
Does this mean that the SpaceX-supplied TLEs (SupTLE?) are getting closer to observed TLEs? If so - that is good news!
The Air Force's database doesn't always have the most accurate data about active satellites, which typically have GPS trackers -- a more precise way to determine an object's exact location...
... Moriba Jah, the UT astrodynamicist, has proposed a solution [to managing space traffic]. He wants commercial operators to agree to hand over their GPS data to a single, independent database. The Air Force could focus on providing location data for orbital debris, and junk-tracking telescopes operated by other organizations could add their information as well. The database, which he calls AstriaGraph, could be a single location for tracking debris, satellites and calculating the odds of collisions.
I have been looking for companies that might be suppliers for SpaceX in the Starlink system. Since it is almost impossible to invest in SpaceX stock directly, I figure the best alternative is the suppliers that might provide equipment.
Gilat Satellite Networks seems like a probable supplier. Symbol is GILT on NASDAQ. They make much of the network gear needed on the ground, on planes or on ships to communicate with satellites. They also have products that they are testing with LEO sats.
Just an idea. I am interested if you guys know of other possible ways to indirectly invest in Starlink, OneWeb, etc Thanks
Some weird comment from CEO of Arianespace regarding Starlink: SpaceX's mega-constellation of Starlink satellites could result in a 'Wild West' scenario in space, says Ariane 6 manufacturer CEO (https://www.businessinsider.com/arianespace-ceo-elon-musk-colonize-low-earth-orbit-2019-11?r=US&IR=T&utm_source=reddit.com)
this.^^^^There is a campaign starting in France at the highest level of the French government on the topic : Faut-il restreindre l'acces a l'espace ? (Should access to space be restricted ?). The clever guys at the head of France are going to lobby for some kind of inter national authority which would deliver launch permits worldwide. They want to make it a European initiative first, of course in the name of environment, risk of debris, protection of astronomy and end up with a kind of international treaty establishing this authority.
For the time being it is low signal but I expect it to become more and more public. And - it is fair game - they will jump on any mishap, space collision for instance, which might happen to make their case.
I can imagine the reaction of the US, Russia, China to such a proposal ...
Bottom line is that since they feel they cannot afford to compete they want to create legal impediments. And of course they probably don't take Starship seriously with its multiple launches a day. Imagine what they would do if they did.
That proposal is DOA (Dead On Arrival) IMO. If the French government is foolish enough to expect that a country like China would accept to have its access to space regulated by a non-China agency...
Same for USA and Russia because of the possible implications for their respective national security launches.
Simply not going to happen.
It is much more likely their will be an international effort to clean up LEO and MEO and set internationally binding rules for space debris prevention and clean-up.
It's time for Europe to stop complaining, scrap Ariane 6, and start immediately to put all their resources inti a fully-reusable launch vehicle.Probably off topic for this particular thread, don't you think? Just sayin'
I have been looking for companies that might be suppliers for SpaceX in the Starlink system. Since it is almost impossible to invest in SpaceX stock directly, I figure the best alternative is the suppliers that might provide equipment.
Gilat Satellite Networks seems like a probable supplier. Symbol is GILT on NASDAQ. They make much of the network gear needed on the ground, on planes or on ships to communicate with satellites. They also have products that they are testing with LEO sats.
Just an idea. I am interested if you guys know of other possible ways to indirectly invest in Starlink, OneWeb, etc Thanks
I have been looking for companies that might be suppliers for SpaceX in the Starlink system. Since it is almost impossible to invest in SpaceX stock directly, I figure the best alternative is the suppliers that might provide equipment.
Gilat Satellite Networks seems like a probable supplier. Symbol is GILT on NASDAQ. They make much of the network gear needed on the ground, on planes or on ships to communicate with satellites. They also have products that they are testing with LEO sats.
Just an idea. I am interested if you guys know of other possible ways to indirectly invest in Starlink, OneWeb, etc Thanks
My Fidelity Contrafund holds a small stake in SpaceX
However I was thinking more about along the analogy of the gold rush in California and Alaska. It wasn't the gold miners that made the money, it was the companies that sold them the picks, the Levis, the food and the prostitutes (FYI ... Donald Trump's grandfather owned a successful bar/brothel along the route).
So my interest turned towards hunting down the likely equipment makers for Starlink. Who makes the phased array antennas? Who makes the satellite modems? Who makes the ground equipment? Who makes the stuff on the airplanes which is aerodynamic so it doesn't interfere with the fuel consumption.
So far, the most likely suspect I have found is Gilat (GILT). But I am hunting for other likely suspect so I can spread my investment dollars around a few different horses in this race.
I think Oneweb is going to be pushing hard for those customers at higher latitudes as they start launching their satellites. With their orbit they get polar coverage first and could have a lengthy lead over SpaceX in those areas. (In addition to Canada, there are plenty of customers in Northern Europe.)
What part of "Northern Europe" would that be?
Because if you refer to countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark than you might be in for a surprise. Those northern European countries already have an extremely high coverage of high-speed internet connections.
Why would you hop through any if Starlink can take you direct?I think Oneweb is going to be pushing hard for those customers at higher latitudes as they start launching their satellites. With their orbit they get polar coverage first and could have a lengthy lead over SpaceX in those areas. (In addition to Canada, there are plenty of customers in Northern Europe.)
What part of "Northern Europe" would that be?
Because if you refer to countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark than you might be in for a surprise. Those northern European countries already have an extremely high coverage of high-speed internet connections.
OneWeb and Starlink are not simply going direct to consumer. Their biggest customers are likely to be the existing telecommunications companies which want to add to their network bandwidth.
Instead of having to navigate communications through multiple providers to send data/voice from New York to Singapore or London to Tokyo, it makes a great deal of sense for AT&T (or Verizon, Deutsche Telekom, Vodafone, China Mobile, etc) to have a deal with OneWeb or Starlink to route some or most of their global data.
Speed of data sells at a premium. Do I want to hop thru 5 networks or just 1 ?
There is a campaign starting in France at the highest level of the French government on the topic : Faut-il restreindre l'acces a l'espace ? (Should access to space be restricted ?).
Why would you hop through any if Starlink can take you direct?
(mod) Let's not go too far down the investment advice direction ok? We are not a financial site. Thanks. What we have seen so far is ok, just a word to the wise....However I was thinking more about along the analogy of the gold rush in California and Alaska. It wasn't the gold miners that made the money, it was the companies that sold them the picks, the Levis, the food and the prostitutes (FYI ... Donald Trump's grandfather owned a successful bar/brothel along the route).
So my interest turned towards hunting down the likely equipment makers for Starlink. Who makes the phased array antennas? Who makes the satellite modems? Who makes the ground equipment? Who makes the stuff on the airplanes which is aerodynamic so it doesn't interfere with the fuel consumption.
So far, the most likely suspect I have found is Gilat (GILT). But I am hunting for other likely suspect so I can spread my investment dollars around a few different horses in this race.
I think in general that can be a valid investment strategy. However, in the case of Starlink I think there will be two big challenges:
1. Many suppliers will only have a tiny portion of their business with Starlink.
2. Many suppliers will be in competitive markets so they will have low margins.
These factors will, I suspect, make it very difficult to find any company that will make a significant amount from Starlink even if Starlink is fantastically successful and makes a fortune for SpaceX.
SpaceX had meetings on Monday and Tuesday with the FCC Chairman and three other commissioners, as well as staff (22 participants overall) regarding the license modification application. Quite a crew.
See the attached ex-parte notification that SpaceX filed today. Discussion topics included:
*The benefits of approving the license modification for hastening the introduction of service;
*SpaceX's orbital debris and collision plans;
*Amazon's application for a constellation and whether it should be considered as part of the current round or an additional round; and
*The 12.2 - 12.7 GHz band.
SpaceX’s Gwynne Shotwell says “subsequent launches will see [Starlink] satellites with experimental coatings to reduce their brightness in the sky”
Shotwell said the next batch has one satellite “where we put a coating on the bottom.” She noted that this is just an experiment and could not predict if it will work. “We’re do trial and error to figure out the best way to get this done,” said Shotwell. ... “It definitely changes the performance of the satellite, thermally. It’ll be some trial and error but we’ll fix it.”
What is taking so long between Starlink launches? Is it a manufacturing bottleneck? I would like to think SpaceX has the rockets and fairings ready.
The SpaceX meeting with the FCC this week wasn't anything special, they do that fairly often (as do the other satellite companies.)
The SpaceX meeting with the FCC this week wasn't anything special, they do that fairly often (as do the other satellite companies.)
Is that information that you have received, or your opinion? Because I doubt that they have two-day meetings with almost all of the FCC's decision-makers and their staffs fairly often.
The SpaceX meeting with the FCC this week wasn't anything special, they do that fairly often (as do the other satellite companies.)
Is that information that you have received, or your opinion? Because I doubt that they have two-day meetings with almost all of the FCC's decision-makers and their staffs fairly often.
I'm telling you, gongora really keeps tabs on this. He(?) knows this stuff.
He (?) didn't bite...I'm telling you, gongora really keeps tabs on this. He(?) knows this stuff.
I'm no expert on satellites or communications, but I do try to keep up with what's happening in the FCC filings.
https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing (https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing)
[...]
SpaceX plans to have 1,584 Starlink satellites in orbit by the end of 2020.
From the recent AAS post about mitigating brightness:https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing (https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing)
[...]
SpaceX plans to have 1,584 Starlink satellites in orbit by the end of 2020.
From the recent AAS post about mitigating brightness:https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing (https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing)
[...]
SpaceX plans to have 1,584 Starlink satellites in orbit by the end of 2020.
1584 satellited divided by 60 satellites per launch = 26.4 launches, probably 27
27 launches minus 2 previous launches = ~25 more Starlink launches "before the end of 2020".
There are about 55 weeks before the end of next year.
That's almost one every two weeks.
We have heard this before.
From the recent AAS post about mitigating brightness:https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing (https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing)
[...]
SpaceX plans to have 1,584 Starlink satellites in orbit by the end of 2020.
1584 satellited divided by 60 satellites per launch = 26.4 launches, probably 27
27 launches minus 2 previous launches = ~25 more Starlink launches "before the end of 2020".
There are about 55 weeks before the end of next year.
That's almost one every two weeks.
We have heard this before.
From the recent AAS post about mitigating brightness:https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing (https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing)
[...]
SpaceX plans to have 1,584 Starlink satellites in orbit by the end of 2020.
1584 satellited divided by 60 satellites per launch = 26.4 launches, probably 27
27 launches minus 2 previous launches = ~25 more Starlink launches "before the end of 2020".
There are about 55 weeks before the end of next year.
That's almost one every two weeks.
We have heard this before.
Here's the thing about SpaceX: history has shown that it very often doesn't do things when it had claimed. But then later it does do exactly what it had claimed and goes beyond that.
So, you need to be very careful about saying "We have heard this before." SpaceX failing to do something it said it would do last year doesn't mean it won't do it next year.
He (?) didn't bite...What bite, whether gongora is male or female?
From the recent AAS post about mitigating brightness:https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing (https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing)
[...]
SpaceX plans to have 1,584 Starlink satellites in orbit by the end of 2020.
1584 satellited divided by 60 satellites per launch = 26.4 launches, probably 27
27 launches minus 2 previous launches = ~25 more Starlink launches "before the end of 2020".
There are about 55 weeks before the end of next year.
That's almost one every two weeks.
We have heard this before.
Here's the thing about SpaceX: history has shown that it very often doesn't do things when it had claimed. But then later it does do exactly what it had claimed and goes beyond that.
So, you need to be very careful about saying "We have heard this before." SpaceX failing to do something it said it would do last year doesn't mean it won't do it next year.
(snip)
From the recent AAS post about mitigating brightness:https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing (https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing)
[...]
SpaceX plans to have 1,584 Starlink satellites in orbit by the end of 2020.
1584 satellited divided by 60 satellites per launch = 26.4 launches, probably 27
27 launches minus 2 previous launches = ~25 more Starlink launches "before the end of 2020".
There are about 55 weeks before the end of next year.
That's almost one every two weeks.
We have heard this before.
Here's the thing about SpaceX: history has shown that it very often doesn't do things when it had claimed. But then later it does do exactly what it had claimed and goes beyond that.
So, you need to be very careful about saying "We have heard this before." SpaceX failing to do something it said it would do last year doesn't mean it won't do it next year.
(snip)
You have misinterpreted my comments and impugned a criticism that I did not levy.
"We have heard this before" refers to statements by Shotwell that SpaceX would conduct a Starlink launch almost every other week.
That is, the simple calculation above meshes with the previous statement.
I make no judgements about if and when SpaceX will be able to achieve that pace.
It is common, especially on forums where all we have is text, to assume there is a disagreement based on interpretation.
That is not necessarily the case here.
It is possible my point could have been stated more explicitly.
I have often made that criticism myself of posts that were oblique, coded, or reliant of a wealth of background knowledge.
My apologies for any confusion.
Well, it seems that SpaceX is going to test max amount of launches the range can handle in 1 year.
We all are asking if SpaceX can turn around every two weeks which they demonstrated they could, but does anyone think they can do that around all the other launches from the cape? With all the other non-starlink traffic next year added...it would basically be a launch a week. Extend that to 2021 with BO and SLS.....I see a launch complex traffic jam. ;D
Oh...and I forgot about orbital SS testing in the middle of all of that..... :o
Well, it seems that SpaceX is going to test max amount of launches the range can handle in 1 year.
We all are asking if SpaceX can turn around every two weeks which they demonstrated they could, but does anyone think they can do that around all the other launches from the cape? With all the other non-starlink traffic next year added...it would basically be a launch a week. Extend that to 2021 with BO and SLS.....I see a launch complex traffic jam. ;D
Oh...and I forgot about orbital SS testing in the middle of all of that..... :o
It's a good question, but the Air Force people in charge of the range have been saying things to indicate that they see the same issue and are working on supporting the increased launch rate.
SpaceX has worked very closely with the Easter Range for years now. I think SpaceX is in a good position to know whether or not the range can support it, and that they wouldn't be betting the range can do it if they didn't think they could.
Well, it seems that SpaceX is going to test max amount of launches the range can handle in 1 year.
We all are asking if SpaceX can turn around every two weeks which they demonstrated they could, but does anyone think they can do that around all the other launches from the cape? With all the other non-starlink traffic next year added...it would basically be a launch a week. Extend that to 2021 with BO and SLS.....I see a launch complex traffic jam. ;D
Oh...and I forgot about orbital SS testing in the middle of all of that..... :o
It's a good question, but the Air Force people in charge of the range have been saying things to indicate that they see the same issue and are working on supporting the increased launch rate.
SpaceX has worked very closely with the Easter Range for years now. I think SpaceX is in a good position to know whether or not the range can support it, and that they wouldn't be betting the range can do it if they didn't think they could.
Well, if I read right, the range said something like 40 something a year. But I was more thinking about certain DOD launches that sometime don't like anything going on around them till they launch. Also, I can't see NASA allowing any SS testing/trials going on while SLS is sitting on the 39B pad for example. Things like that...they are few and far between, but when you have a schedule so packed to the brim, they stand out more.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/09/business/spacex-starlink-antenna-user-terminal-scn/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
"
SpaceX is among a new crop of companies — which include Amazon and Softbank-backed OneWeb — that are trying again. They expect to be successful this time because satellites and rockets are cheaperthan ever. While deploying a satellite internet constellation will be far from easy, that effort would be less likely to end in bankruptcy.
Ground equipment may pose one of the biggest obstacle to success.
"
If price is to high customers won't buy terminal in which case Spacex could lease it to them.
In Amazon's case I think they are initially targetting their big AWS customers including Amazon, who want secure links. They won't have any problems funding the $5-10b outlay for the constellation. Something SpaceX may struggle with, especially if customers don't sign up.
If Amazon are targetting their own AWS customers then there is no need to race against SpaceX. NG will be launching in 2 years and should be fully operational by end of 2022 all going well. It should have lot lower launch cost per satellite than F9R given its massive fairing.
SpaceX can't rely on development of SS to launch their constellation, so may end up using F9R for bulk of launch..
If Amazon are targetting their own AWS customers then there is no need to race against SpaceX. NG will be launching in 2 years and should be fully operational by end of 2022 all going well. It should have lot lower launch cost per satellite than F9R given its massive fairing.
SpaceX can't rely on development of SS to launch their constellation, so may end up using F9R for bulk of launch..
I wasn't prying, just amused at the non-exchange...He (?) didn't bite...What bite, whether gongora is male or female?
I know, but it's gongora's place to decide how much information to reveal and it's not polite to pry too much, ok?
SpaceX has to use F9R to get their initial constellation in place. They are doing it now.If Amazon are targetting their own AWS customers then there is no need to race against SpaceX. NG will be launching in 2 years and should be fully operational by end of 2022 all going well. It should have lot lower launch cost per satellite than F9R given its massive fairing.
SpaceX can't rely on development of SS to launch their constellation, so may end up using F9R for bulk of launch..
So you're happy to believe that Blue Origin, a company that has yet to even reach orbit, will leapfrog SpaceX and have a cheaper launch solution in three years, but you can't believe SpaceX can build their own larger, cheaper launch solution in a reasonable timeframe?
I have to disagree.
SpaceX has to use F9R to get their initial constellation in place. They are doing it now.If Amazon are targetting their own AWS customers then there is no need to race against SpaceX. NG will be launching in 2 years and should be fully operational by end of 2022 all going well. It should have lot lower launch cost per satellite than F9R given its massive fairing.
SpaceX can't rely on development of SS to launch their constellation, so may end up using F9R for bulk of launch..
So you're happy to believe that Blue Origin, a company that has yet to even reach orbit, will leapfrog SpaceX and have a cheaper launch solution in three years, but you can't believe SpaceX can build their own larger, cheaper launch solution in a reasonable timeframe?
I have to disagree.
Amazon is few years away from deploying their constellation.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/09/business/spacex-starlink-antenna-user-terminal-scn/index.html
SpaceX doesn't plan to buy user terminals made by others. In typical fashion, the company will keep design and production in house.
Shotwell, the SpaceX COO, said a team of engineers have started a prototype production line at the company's headquarters in Hawthorne, California. They "still have a lot of work to do," she said.
..I see a launch complex traffic jam. ;D
...
I wonder what they're using now? Because Musk claimed to have sent a tweet via Starlink a few weeks(?) ago... they must be using something, possibly breadboarded up or whatever...
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/09/business/spacex-starlink-antenna-user-terminal-scn/index.html
From the article, haven't seen this part before:QuoteSpaceX doesn't plan to buy user terminals made by others. In typical fashion, the company will keep design and production in house.
Shotwell, the SpaceX COO, said a team of engineers have started a prototype production line at the company's headquarters in Hawthorne, California. They "still have a lot of work to do," she said.
..I see a launch complex traffic jam. ;D
...
Could they resume Vandenberg?
I wonder what they're using now? Because Musk claimed to have sent a tweet via Starlink a few weeks(?) ago... they must be using something, possibly breadboarded up or whatever...
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/09/business/spacex-starlink-antenna-user-terminal-scn/index.html
From the article, haven't seen this part before:QuoteSpaceX doesn't plan to buy user terminals made by others. In typical fashion, the company will keep design and production in house.
Shotwell, the SpaceX COO, said a team of engineers have started a prototype production line at the company's headquarters in Hawthorne, California. They "still have a lot of work to do," she said.
At risk of putting the cart before the horse, how would one go about calculating likely annual revenue from Starlink in the early years?
Once they have a basic constellation up by late next year - around 1500 satellites I believe - what are the realistic customer numbers the early network could cover? Is a million customers by end of 2020 a realistic target? 10 million?
If the latter, then a back of the envelope 10m x $50/month subscription fee x 12 months = $6bn annual revenue from there on out. That’s 3 times their total current launch revenue. Even if just a million customers is achieved, that’s still $600m Starlink revenue per year, starting from late 2020.
What I’m not sure about is the carrying capacity of the initial network. Are we talking hundreds of thousands of customers only, or will it reach millions or tens of millions from the early days?
This may seem wildly optimistic, even by Elon Time, however, there is a sense of urgency in that they must be burning through that pile of cash they accumulated for Starlink, last year and this past Spring. As well, with launches slowed down on the commercial launch market, because of customers not being ready, they are burning through reserves from SpaceX coffers to fund Starship/Super Heavy Booster development.
To top it off, this year Elon has had a number of embarrassing disappointments, in both his lead companies, despite putting on a brave face. He'll want to have something good to report. Besides intial Giga Factory 3 production/sales, and the Dragon 2 Flight Abort and hopeful Demo 2 to the ISS with crew, of course. :D
SpaceX will be coating one of the next 60 satellites with an experimental compound to reduce the bird's reflectivity. They've taken this step in response to complaints by astronomers that the potentially 40-K-strong constellation will interfere with Earth-based astronomical research. Gwynne Shotwell told journalists that the company's primary concern focuses on the thermal effects of the coating on satellite performance, which she added would be changed. If this unforeseen developmental step proves troublesome, I wonder if it might force significant delays in the Starlink launch cadence forecast for 2020.
12.12.19
Reality and hype in satellite constellations…
Posted in Broadband, Echostar, SpaceX, Spectrum, ViaSat, VSAT at 4:47 pm by tim farrar
http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2019/12/12/reality-and-hype-in-satellite-constellations/
the retail price of data on existing fixed broadband connections will soon be below $0.10 per Gbyte. So Handmer has overestimated the retail revenue potential per satellite for Starlink by at least 20-40 times.
the satellite broadband market has fewer than 2M subscribers in North America and 1M users in the rest of the world combined, which Viasat, Echostar and others have spent the last decade trying to serve (and at least in North America have essentially saturated the market). So it seems unlikely that Starlink will do much better.
The issue of user terminal cost can be mitigated by leasing the terminals. $15/mo over 67 months is the $1000 suggested price, and there's no reason the terminals can't last more than 5-6 years.Where did you get 1000$ from?
The issue of user terminal cost can be mitigated by leasing the terminals. $15/mo over 67 months is the $1000 suggested price, and there's no reason the terminals can't last more than 5-6 years.Where did you get 1000$ from?
Oneweb aims for 200-300$
and I would not believe any price above that for the spacex terminals too.
https://spacenews.com/wyler-claims-breakthrough-in-low-cost-antenna-for-oneweb-other-satellite-systems/
12.12.19
Reality and hype in satellite constellations…
Posted in Broadband, Echostar, SpaceX, Spectrum, ViaSat, VSAT at 4:47 pm by tim farrar
http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2019/12/12/reality-and-hype-in-satellite-constellations/
We need to start splitting up the Starlink discussion a little now that it's actually being built. I stole a few recent posts to start a thread on alternate Starlink design/uses other than the LEO communications constellation.Additional thread suggestions:
SpaceX Starlink : Uses beyond just Earth communications (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49024.0)
Satellite design/development/manufacture?
Deployment strategies/timelines/orbits?
Operations configurations/pricing/ground terminals?
...
At 4% utilization, the 1600 satellite constellation would need to find customers willing to pay $2/GB and max out the throughput to hit $30M per satellite over 5 years. That is, for example, 2.5x as much data at 5x the speed and 1/10th the latency, as the current basic satellite internet packages. That's a fairly compelling offer to GEOsat/DSL/cellular broadband users, and still a ridiculous amount of revenue over the likely sub-$1M cost per launched satellite.
...
If they have more than 100000 I would be very surprised. In case they can offer something to the public in late 2020, I would guess somewhere in the ballpark 30-50k customers. Creating an account and customer management is no trivial task either.Need door knocking sales team, installation crews. While rural market is prime canditate for Starlink, installation costs a lot higher than city intalls just because of travel time between site. An installer maybe down to 1 or 2 a day. I've done few rural installations of different equipment, don't underestimate time between jobs, even finding customer can take while. Installation costs can easily creep up to few $100 plus terminal.
...
In cities Starlink will need a significant point of difference to convince customer to change from cable. Won't be price as incumbants can easily cut their prices, for lot of users speed and latency aren't an issue especially if main use is browsing and watching internet TV.
Need to recover installation costs in 24months as that is typical contract, after that customer could switch providers, most won't if Starlink is delivering good service.
In cities, I suspect that the initial primary selling target will be businesses looking for alternate service provider, or a redundant service provider. Installation costs are fairly meaningless for medium to large businesses. Additionally, depending on the location, a business may have easy rooftop space for the antennas.
That's assuming that Starlink is only offered with extra rate charges or cap on usage- if a starlink business contract is offered with unlimited data/limited BW (say 250Mb/s), that would an outright point of difference for most business customers.
I suspect the market for rational internet connectivity is larger than some analysts give it credit, and SpaceX isn't afraid to challenge the traditional pricing models...
The aspect that seems to be missing from the astronomy alarmists’ doomsday predictions is the temporary and self de-orbiting nature of the Starlink constellation.
Even if the entire first 10,000 satellites go up without any anti- reflective coating whatsoever, this won’t permanently impact the night sky. Because Starlink satellites have a comparatively short lifespan and are designed to deorbit and be replaced in a roughly 5 year cycle.
Meaning that if SpaceX needs to rush their rollout now, they can spend 5 years working on a future, less reflective satellite and within a decade all of the initial satellites will have been replaced anyway.
So the idea that SpaceX should halt launches until the reflection problem is fully addressed or else risk permanently ruining the night sky for earth based astronomy is false.
<snip>
In cities Starlink will need a significant point of difference to convince customer to change from cable.
<snip>
In cities Starlink will need a significant point of difference to convince customer to change from cable. Won't be price as incumbants can easily cut their prices, for lot of users speed and latency aren't an issue especially if main use is browsing and watching internet TV.My impression is that most large ISPs are terrible -- terrible pricing, terrible customer service, and often effective monopolies in their area. Certainly the stories of companies like Comcast are legendary. I don't think it would take much to get most people to switch their internet service provider.
why tesla customer service experience is discounted in all those skepticism about starlink customer relations? there's already hundred thousands tesla customer in US alone; pretty sure big % of them will buy into starlink.
Tesla does not advertise a lot and doesn't go typical car sale routines, why starlink would be different in that respect?
I'm pretty sure in one year after operational, starlink would have at least 100K customers. and that is seriously sandbagging...
why tesla customer service experience is discounted in all those skepticism about starlink customer relations? there's already hundred thousands tesla customer in US alone; pretty sure big % of them will buy into starlink.You are right most of Tesla customer having cable internet will switch in moment that will be available. I am not able to find any reliable service no matter if it is Cox,AT&T,Spectrum. Their network is unreliable and have experience with all of them in last 5 years.
Tesla does not advertise a lot and doesn't go typical car sale routines, why starlink would be different in that respect?
I'm pretty sure in one year after operational, Starlink would have at least 100K customers. and that is seriously sandbagging...
...
At 4% utilization, the 1600 satellite constellation would need to find customers willing to pay $2/GB and max out the throughput to hit $30M per satellite over 5 years. That is, for example, 2.5x as much data at 5x the speed and 1/10th the latency, as the current basic satellite internet packages. That's a fairly compelling offer to GEOsat/DSL/cellular broadband users, and still a ridiculous amount of revenue over the likely sub-$1M cost per launched satellite.
...
4% utilization seems relatively optimistic to me. Who appreciated that?
Most of the time, the Starlink satellites can not be used because they are over the ocean
or over countries where there are no ground stations and no terminals. Russia, China ...
There are also many many businesses that wouldn't mind a satellite link on their roof for backup redundancy. an extra $100 a month is pittance for most businesses. anyplace with a credit card terminal, really. So there might be many subscribers with very low data demands.I work from home and I currently have two independent Internet connections (DSL & Cable) for redundancy. I'd love to switch the DSL which is expensive and slow (but reliable). How reliable Starlink is to start with will be important to watch.
It's the high end of the estimates (2-4%) in the article I was quoting. Also, simulations of the 1584 satellite constellation show ~45 over the CONUS on average, which is 3%. Assuming a 75% CONUS, 25% ROW split gives 4%.
It's the high end of the estimates (2-4%) in the article I was quoting. Also, simulations of the 1584 satellite constellation show ~45 over the CONUS on average, which is 3%. Assuming a 75% CONUS, 25% ROW split gives 4%.
Thank you for the clear explanation.
(but my opinion remains the same: optimistic ) :)
For example, Iridium’s (never filled) capacity for its first generation of satellites was just under 4% of the nominal peak capacity per satellite (1100 calls per satellite x 66 satellites = 38.2 billion minutes, but the system only had 1.5 billion minutes of saleable capacity per year).
Lots of Commercial Airline Flights, Cargo Ships, Oil Rigs, Private Pleasure Boats (other than cruise ships). Military Ships, Planes and Communications Centers, static and mobile. Clearly remember getting a call about this time of year, from a South African friend headed to England for the holidays, at 36,000 feet over Central Africa, on her smart phone. With 5G and 6G it's going to be an interesting decade. I've begun calling it "The Roaring Twenties v2.0"!Maybe. But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
Gramps
Lots of Commercial Airline Flights, Cargo Ships, Oil Rigs, Private Pleasure Boats (other than cruise ships). Military Ships, Planes and Communications Centers, static and mobile. Clearly remember getting a call about this time of year, from a South African friend headed to England for the holidays, at 36,000 feet over Central Africa, on her smart phone. With 5G and 6G it's going to be an interesting decade. I've begun calling it "The Roaring Twenties v2.0"!Maybe. But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
Gramps
It's hard to even picture how empty the South Pacific is. I travelled by sea from Hawaii to Australia. In 18 days at sea, covering 8000 km, with excellent visibility, we saw one (1) other ship, total. If you assume we could see 25 km to each side (it was probably more) that's one ship per 400,000 square kilometers. And this is probably one of the busier routes!Lots of Commercial Airline Flights, Cargo Ships, Oil Rigs, Private Pleasure Boats (other than cruise ships). Military Ships, Planes and Communications Centers, static and mobile. Clearly remember getting a call about this time of year, from a South African friend headed to England for the holidays, at 36,000 feet over Central Africa, on her smart phone. With 5G and 6G it's going to be an interesting decade. I've begun calling it "The Roaring Twenties v2.0"!Maybe. But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
Gramps
Sure, the oceans are very, very sparsely populated compared to land.I have iridium service on my boat. Calls and data included (unlimited) for $150 a month but... It's basically 2400 bps.
But there is also far, far less competition for internet service there, and what competition there is is much, much more expensive.
So, Starlink can expect much higher market share and much, much higher prices for internet service over the ocean. It might be a significant portion of revenue, at least in the early days when the market share is small on land.
It's hard to even picture how empty the South Pacific is. I travelled by sea from Hawaii to Australia. In 18 days at sea, covering 8000 km, with excellent visibility, we saw one (1) other ship, total. If you assume we could see 25 km to each side (it was probably more) that's one ship per 400,000 square kilometers. And this is probably one of the busier routes!Lots of Commercial Airline Flights, Cargo Ships, Oil Rigs, Private Pleasure Boats (other than cruise ships). Military Ships, Planes and Communications Centers, static and mobile. Clearly remember getting a call about this time of year, from a South African friend headed to England for the holidays, at 36,000 feet over Central Africa, on her smart phone. With 5G and 6G it's going to be an interesting decade. I've begun calling it "The Roaring Twenties v2.0"!Maybe. But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
Gramps
It absolutely boggles my mind that the Polynesians were able to find the tiny islands in the middle of this vast expanse, much less return home and then go back and settle them, with only canoes for transport, and navigation without instruments.
It's hard to even picture how empty the South Pacific is. I travelled by sea from Hawaii to Australia. In 18 days at sea, covering 8000 km, with excellent visibility, we saw one (1) other ship, total. If you assume we could see 25 km to each side (it was probably more) that's one ship per 400,000 square kilometers. And this is probably one of the busier routes!Lots of Commercial Airline Flights, Cargo Ships, Oil Rigs, Private Pleasure Boats (other than cruise ships). Military Ships, Planes and Communications Centers, static and mobile. Clearly remember getting a call about this time of year, from a South African friend headed to England for the holidays, at 36,000 feet over Central Africa, on her smart phone. With 5G and 6G it's going to be an interesting decade. I've begun calling it "The Roaring Twenties v2.0"!Maybe. But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
Gramps
It absolutely boggles my mind that the Polynesians were able to find the tiny islands in the middle of this vast expanse, much less return home and then go back and settle them, with only canoes for transport, and navigation without instruments.
On the other hand the Pacific and Atlantic seaboards, and the Gulf and Caribbean, are packed with potential customers.
Even without inter-satellite links, once the 1100 km shell is populated SpaceX can even fully cover transatlantic flights if they have base stations in Newfoundland and Ireland. Add Iceland, Bermuda, and the Azores (even as bounce stations) and they can offer transatlantic direct connections and cover the entire North Atlantic for shipping and aircraft.
On my trip to the Philly area last week, I sat down with @WeHaveMECO to put together some great vids on CelesTrak and what’s going on in Earth orbit. If you’ve ever wondered how CelesTrak got started or what’s going on behind the scenes, be sure to check this out!
SAT-MOD-20191217-00148 (http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATMOD2019121700148&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number)QuotePlanet Labs Inc. (“Planet”) respectfully requests authority to modify the authorization for
Planet’s SkySat Earth Exploration Satellite Service (“EESS”) system (FCC Call Sign S2862).
Specifically, Planet requests authority to:
● Modify the authorized orbital location for the SkySat-16 to SkySat-21 satellites to include
the inclination range 40° – 60° in addition to the currently authorized inclination range of
97.0° – 97.9°; and
● Modify the operational orbital altitude for SkySat-3 to include 400 km.
...
SkySat-16 through SkySat-18 are intended to be launched as secondary payloads in April
2020 on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle, and SkySat-19 through SkySat-21 are intended to be
launched as secondary payloads in June 2020 on a subsequent Falcon 9 launch vehicle. The six
SkySats are expected to be deployed into a 190 km x 380 km elliptical orbit.
I think some of the analysis of Revenue potential breaks down badly due to necessary reliance on simplifying assumptions.
Until Starlink has serious competition, they can price offerings in such a way to overcome things like $/GB and limited opportunity at sea. They might choose not to because they might be philosophically opposed to going that route, but they clearly could with respect to the Revenue Potential.
If demand outpaces availability in the early days, pricing is about all they'll have to limit oversubscribing the system. They really don't want a reputation for selling more than they can deliver in the first years.I think some of the analysis of Revenue potential breaks down badly due to necessary reliance on simplifying assumptions.
Until Starlink has serious competition, they can price offerings in such a way to overcome things like $/GB and limited opportunity at sea. They might choose not to because they might be philosophically opposed to going that route, but they clearly could with respect to the Revenue Potential.
Elon doesn't have a history of sticking it to people on pricing. He seems to take a decent price when given the opportunity, but he doesn't get greedy.
Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, starting with a fair price speeds up adoption and is better for branding. No customer wants to be treated like AT&T or Comcast treats them.
If demand outpaces availability in the early days, pricing is about all they'll have to limit oversubscribing the system. They really don't want a reputation for selling more than they can deliver in the first years.
SAT-MOD-20191217-00148 (http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATMOD2019121700148&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number)QuoteSkySat-16 through SkySat-18 are intended to be launched as secondary payloads in April
2020 on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle, and SkySat-19 through SkySat-21 are intended to be
launched as secondary payloads in June 2020 on a subsequent Falcon 9 launch vehicle. The six
SkySats are expected to be deployed into a 190 km x 380 km elliptical orbit.
190x380 is even lower than the last one, right? They must be getting really confident in their deployment. Others would consider 190km reentry.
I think some of the analysis of Revenue potential breaks down badly due to necessary reliance on simplifying assumptions.
Until Starlink has serious competition, they can price offerings in such a way to overcome things like $/GB and limited opportunity at sea. They might choose not to because they might be philosophically opposed to going that route, but they clearly could with respect to the Revenue Potential.
Elon doesn't have a history of sticking it to people on pricing. He seems to take a decent price when given the opportunity, but he doesn't get greedy.
Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, starting with a fair price speeds up adoption and is better for branding. No customer wants to be treated like AT&T or Comcast treats them.
If demand outpaces availability in the early days, pricing is about all they'll have to limit oversubscribing the system. They really don't want a reputation for selling more than they can deliver in the first years.I can see SpaceX prioritizing rural customers without good broadband options. Yes, that would leave me out, but my friend 6 miles east would be in. Her only options are current satellite, dialup, or 3G phone.
It's hard to even picture how empty the South Pacific is. I travelled by sea from Hawaii to Australia. In 18 days at sea, covering 8000 km, with excellent visibility, we saw one (1) other ship, total. If you assume we could see 25 km to each side (it was probably more) that's one ship per 400,000 square kilometers. And this is probably one of the busier routes!Lots of Commercial Airline Flights, Cargo Ships, Oil Rigs, Private Pleasure Boats (other than cruise ships). Military Ships, Planes and Communications Centers, static and mobile. Clearly remember getting a call about this time of year, from a South African friend headed to England for the holidays, at 36,000 feet over Central Africa, on her smart phone. With 5G and 6G it's going to be an interesting decade. I've begun calling it "The Roaring Twenties v2.0"!Maybe. But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
Gramps
It absolutely boggles my mind that the Polynesians were able to find the tiny islands in the middle of this vast expanse, much less return home and then go back and settle them, with only canoes for transport, and navigation without instruments.
On the other hand the Pacific and Atlantic seaboards, and the Gulf and Caribbean, are packed with potential customers.
Even without inter-satellite links, once the 1100 km shell is populated SpaceX can even fully cover transatlantic flights if they have base stations in Newfoundland and Ireland. Add Iceland, Bermuda, and the Azores (even as bounce stations) and they can offer transatlantic direct connections and cover the entire North Atlantic for shipping and aircraft.
I agree all you said but the inter-satellite links are such a game changer.
There is a cost of setting up and maintaining the additional ground bounce that won't be need once the ISL's are functional.
It's hard to even picture how empty the South Pacific is. I travelled by sea from Hawaii to Australia. In 18 days at sea, covering 8000 km, with excellent visibility, we saw one (1) other ship, total. If you assume we could see 25 km to each side (it was probably more) that's one ship per 400,000 square kilometers. And this is probably one of the busier routes!Lots of Commercial Airline Flights, Cargo Ships, Oil Rigs, Private Pleasure Boats (other than cruise ships). Military Ships, Planes and Communications Centers, static and mobile. Clearly remember getting a call about this time of year, from a South African friend headed to England for the holidays, at 36,000 feet over Central Africa, on her smart phone. With 5G and 6G it's going to be an interesting decade. I've begun calling it "The Roaring Twenties v2.0"!Maybe. But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
Gramps
It absolutely boggles my mind that the Polynesians were able to find the tiny islands in the middle of this vast expanse, much less return home and then go back and settle them, with only canoes for transport, and navigation without instruments.
On the other hand the Pacific and Atlantic seaboards, and the Gulf and Caribbean, are packed with potential customers.
Even without inter-satellite links, once the 1100 km shell is populated SpaceX can even fully cover transatlantic flights if they have base stations in Newfoundland and Ireland. Add Iceland, Bermuda, and the Azores (even as bounce stations) and they can offer transatlantic direct connections and cover the entire North Atlantic for shipping and aircraft.
I agree all you said but the inter-satellite links are such a game changer.
There is a cost of setting up and maintaining the additional ground bounce that won't be need once the ISL's are functional.
Setting up some ground bounce for the North Atlantic could be a break even or even a small loss and still be worthwhile for grabbing market share and working out kinks.
They’ll probably plan on the possibility and decide on the fly. ISL is preferable but ya got what ya got.
Phil
It's hard to even picture how empty the South Pacific is. I travelled by sea from Hawaii to Australia. In 18 days at sea, covering 8000 km, with excellent visibility, we saw one (1) other ship, total. If you assume we could see 25 km to each side (it was probably more) that's one ship per 400,000 square kilometers. And this is probably one of the busier routes!Lots of Commercial Airline Flights, Cargo Ships, Oil Rigs, Private Pleasure Boats (other than cruise ships). Military Ships, Planes and Communications Centers, static and mobile. Clearly remember getting a call about this time of year, from a South African friend headed to England for the holidays, at 36,000 feet over Central Africa, on her smart phone. With 5G and 6G it's going to be an interesting decade. I've begun calling it "The Roaring Twenties v2.0"!Maybe. But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
Gramps
It absolutely boggles my mind that the Polynesians were able to find the tiny islands in the middle of this vast expanse, much less return home and then go back and settle them, with only canoes for transport, and navigation without instruments.
On the other hand the Pacific and Atlantic seaboards, and the Gulf and Caribbean, are packed with potential customers.
Even without inter-satellite links, once the 1100 km shell is populated SpaceX can even fully cover transatlantic flights if they have base stations in Newfoundland and Ireland. Add Iceland, Bermuda, and the Azores (even as bounce stations) and they can offer transatlantic direct connections and cover the entire North Atlantic for shipping and aircraft.
I agree all you said but the inter-satellite links are such a game changer.
There is a cost of setting up and maintaining the additional ground bounce that won't be need once the ISL's are functional.
Setting up some ground bounce for the North Atlantic could be a break even or even a small loss and still be worthwhile for grabbing market share and working out kinks.
They’ll probably plan on the possibility and decide on the fly. ISL is preferable but ya got what ya got.
Phil
Shotwell said they are planning on the ISL's being operational by the end of next year.
Setting up a few temporary ground bounce stations as a proof of concept would probably be worth it.
The FCC has granted Spacex's Starlink request."WASHINGTON — The U.S. Federal Communications Commission approved SpaceX’s request to increase the number of lanes its Starlink satellites can orbit, a modification the company said would accelerate service rollout across the United States.
https://spacenews.com/spacex-gets-ok-to-re-space-starlink-orbits/
I'm not where I can grab off the FCC's site and post it here. If someone else can do it... or I'll do it when I can.
The FCC has granted Spacex's Starlink request.
I'm not where I can grab off the FCC's site and post it here. If someone else can do it... or I'll do it when I can.
Disagree. They can limit the number of subscribers in an area and set up a waiting list.If demand outpaces availability in the early days, pricing is about all they'll have to limit oversubscribing the system. They really don't want a reputation for selling more than they can deliver in the first years.I think some of the analysis of Revenue potential breaks down badly due to necessary reliance on simplifying assumptions.
Until Starlink has serious competition, they can price offerings in such a way to overcome things like $/GB and limited opportunity at sea. They might choose not to because they might be philosophically opposed to going that route, but they clearly could with respect to the Revenue Potential.
Elon doesn't have a history of sticking it to people on pricing. He seems to take a decent price when given the opportunity, but he doesn't get greedy.
Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, starting with a fair price speeds up adoption and is better for branding. No customer wants to be treated like AT&T or Comcast treats them.
Perhaps they can only sell to people living in small towns and rural areas at first. Specifically, the areas they know don't have any high speed service. As more sats go up, they can expand their market.Disagree. They can limit the number of subscribers in an area and set up a waiting list.If demand outpaces availability in the early days, pricing is about all they'll have to limit oversubscribing the system. They really don't want a reputation for selling more than they can deliver in the first years.I think some of the analysis of Revenue potential breaks down badly due to necessary reliance on simplifying assumptions.
Until Starlink has serious competition, they can price offerings in such a way to overcome things like $/GB and limited opportunity at sea. They might choose not to because they might be philosophically opposed to going that route, but they clearly could with respect to the Revenue Potential.
Elon doesn't have a history of sticking it to people on pricing. He seems to take a decent price when given the opportunity, but he doesn't get greedy.
Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, starting with a fair price speeds up adoption and is better for branding. No customer wants to be treated like AT&T or Comcast treats them.
Mark Handley has updated his youtube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m05abdGSOxY
>
Do the starlink boosters return to pad or land on barge.? If barges, then they will also be busy especially with slower turn around than fairing catching boats.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/12/20/spacex-poised-to-accelerate-launch-cadence-with-series-of-starlink-missions/
“Production on Starlink is going really well,” she said earlier this month in a meeting with reporters at SpaceX’s headquarters in Hawthorne, California. “I think the next flight (set) was shipped to the Cape. We build roughly seven satellites … Starting into the new year, you should see a mission every two-to-three weeks from us. We will hold a Starlink mission for a customer launch. But that should be roughly the cadence.”
Here's the 'Starlink ground bounce' HotNets 2019 paper by @MarkJHandley The original ACM library will want to charge $15, but the upgraded library has these HotNets papers for free (when reachable - upgrade in process, apparently).
https://twitter.com/WoodLloydWood/status/1208968070460362753
KEEPING SPACE CLEAN
Starlink is on the leading edge of on-orbit debris mitigation, meeting or exceeding all regulatory and industry standards.
At end of life, the satellites will utilize their on-board propulsion system to deorbit over the course of a few months. In the unlikely event the propulsion system becomes inoperable, the satellites will burn up in Earth’s atmosphere within 1-5 years, significantly less than the hundreds or thousands of years required at higher altitudes.
I just looked into the Starlink webpage.They do not use higher than 550km orbits in their applications and environment assessments. If they would design anything at these orbits new they would have to have very hardcore legal battle with Airbus "(sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)." who de-facto controls OneWeb again and this time to win it. They moved down to the 550km not because they very much wanted it.
https://www.starlink.com/
I saw something very interesting. New to me, did I just miss it or is it really new? I have not seen it discussed.QuoteKEEPING SPACE CLEAN
Starlink is on the leading edge of on-orbit debris mitigation, meeting or exceeding all regulatory and industry standards.
At end of life, the satellites will utilize their on-board propulsion system to deorbit over the course of a few months. In the unlikely event the propulsion system becomes inoperable, the satellites will burn up in Earth’s atmosphere within 1-5 years, significantly less than the hundreds or thousands of years required at higher altitudes.
The accompanying picture shows Starlink as below 1000km at altitudes that decay quickly. Does this mean they have given up their initial altitudes of over 1000km completely? I did not read this from their applications.
I had hoped they would give up the high altitudes but this confirms it.
They do not use higher than 550km orbits in their applications and environment assessments. If they would design anything at these orbits new they would have to have very hardcore legal battle with Airbus "(sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)." who de-facto controls OneWeb again and this time to win it. They moved down to the 550km not because they very much wanted it.
The final result is indeed much better, but it is more the "fluke" an illustration of the "broken matrix" Musk is talking about, than anything else.
They do not use higher than 550km orbits in their applications and environment assessments. If they would design anything at these orbits new they would have to have very hardcore legal battle with Airbus "(sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)." who de-facto controls OneWeb again and this time to win it. They moved down to the 550km not because they very much wanted it.
The final result is indeed much better, but it is more the "fluke" an illustration of the "broken matrix" Musk is talking about, than anything else.
If demand outpaces availability in the early days, pricing is about all they'll have to limit oversubscribing the system. They really don't want a reputation for selling more than they can deliver in the first years.I can see SpaceX prioritizing rural customers without good broadband options. Yes, that would leave me out, but my friend 6 miles east would be in. Her only options are current satellite, dialup, or 3G phone.
If demand outpaces availability in the early days, pricing is about all they'll have to limit oversubscribing the system. They really don't want a reputation for selling more than they can deliver in the first years.I can see SpaceX prioritizing rural customers without good broadband options. Yes, that would leave me out, but my friend 6 miles east would be in. Her only options are current satellite, dialup, or 3G phone.
I could see SpaceX prioritizing the highest paying highest margin customers first. That was the entire Tesla strategy. First the Roadster, then the Model S, then the Model X, then finally years later the more affordable mass market Model 3.
From everything I have read, the orbits of OneWeb and Starlink are not at all close to each other and there is no conflict at all. I am not sure where you are getting that info. If there is a link you could share, please do so.
Viasat's current prices and data allotments are pretty bad, so hopefully there will be a significant improvement. Plans and pricing vary by ZIP code; offers listed on BroadbandNow include $50 a month for download speeds of up to 12Mbps and only 12GB of "priority data" each month. The price rises after a two-year contract expires.
"Once priority data is used up, speeds will be reduced to up to 1 to 5Mbps during the day and possibly below 1Mbps after 5pm," BroadbandNow's summary says. Customers can use data without affecting the limit between 3am and 6am.
Other plans include $75 a month for speeds of 12Mbps and 25GB of priority data; $100 a month for 12Mbps and 50GB; and $150 a month for 25Mbps and "unlimited" data. Even on the so-called unlimited plan, speeds "may be prioritized behind other customers during network congestion" after you use 100GB in a month. Because of these onerous limits, Viasat lowers streaming video quality to reduce data usage. Viasat says it provides speeds of up to 100Mbps but only "in select areas."
Viasat also charges installation fees, a $10-per-month equipment lease fee, and taxes and surcharges. Viasat offers a two-year price lock, but this does not apply to the taxes and surcharges. In order to avoid signing a two-year contract, you have to pay a $300 "No Long-Term Contract" fee.
Viasat is getting $87.1M from FCC Connect America Fund to expand its service to rural areas (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/12/no-fiber-zone-fcc-funds-25mbps-data-capped-satellite-in-rural-areas/)
Hopefully SpaceX can get some money from this fund too. The article also lists Viasat's current prices:QuoteViasat's current prices and data allotments are pretty bad, so hopefully there will be a significant improvement. Plans and pricing vary by ZIP code; offers listed on BroadbandNow include $50 a month for download speeds of up to 12Mbps and only 12GB of "priority data" each month. The price rises after a two-year contract expires.
"Once priority data is used up, speeds will be reduced to up to 1 to 5Mbps during the day and possibly below 1Mbps after 5pm," BroadbandNow's summary says. Customers can use data without affecting the limit between 3am and 6am.
Other plans include $75 a month for speeds of 12Mbps and 25GB of priority data; $100 a month for 12Mbps and 50GB; and $150 a month for 25Mbps and "unlimited" data. Even on the so-called unlimited plan, speeds "may be prioritized behind other customers during network congestion" after you use 100GB in a month. Because of these onerous limits, Viasat lowers streaming video quality to reduce data usage. Viasat says it provides speeds of up to 100Mbps but only "in select areas."
Viasat also charges installation fees, a $10-per-month equipment lease fee, and taxes and surcharges. Viasat offers a two-year price lock, but this does not apply to the taxes and surcharges. In order to avoid signing a two-year contract, you have to pay a $300 "No Long-Term Contract" fee.
Could they use final user apparatus unused band for relay?
I think there are cable companies that use a similar repurposing of end-user equipment to offer wifi to subscribers through private hotspots. So it's probably just in the equipment rental terms of service that those are end user costs.Could they use final user apparatus unused band for relay?
Are they going to pay the final user for electricity they used?
Could they use final user apparatus unused band for relay?
Are they going to pay the final user for electricity they used?
Could they use final user apparatus unused band for relay?
Are they going to pay the final user for electricity they used?
The router is going to be on all the time anyway, so that it's ready immediately when any data comes through, so it's already going to be constantly using a baseline amount of energy to keep everything powered up. I don't know how much more it will use when it's actually transmitting. I doubt it will be optimized for low standby power the way cell phones are, so the power usage while transmitting might not be that much more than its standby power usage.
1. Idle router will consume less power.That's what packet re-transmits are for. Anyways, with enough user routers in an general area, some will always be on. Also these will be like dish network hardware. It will have a box mounted on a wall that powers the phased array antenna unit, and provides the interface for the house's WIFI, and ethernet. Edit: It will be on all the time because it is tucked out of the way in some out of the way place that is convenient for routing the wire to the antenna unit to it.
2. SpaceX can't be sure the router is always on, the owner might lose power or turn it off at any moment, and they have no control.
3. The owner may start using the router at any moment and will expect to get the full capability, so again, the relay function will be unpredictable.
In conclusion, I suspect this will not be worth the trouble for SpaceX,.
1. Idle router will consume less power.That's what packet re-transmits are for. Anyways, with enough user routers in an general area, some will always be on. Also these will be like dish network hardware. It will have a box mounted on a wall that powers the phased array antenna unit, and provides the interface for the house's WIFI, and ethernet. Edit: It will be on all the time because it is tucked out of the way in some out of the way place that is convenient for routing the wire to the antenna unit to it.
2. SpaceX can't be sure the router is always on, the owner might lose power or turn it off at any moment, and they have no control.
3. The owner may start using the router at any moment and will expect to get the full capability, so again, the relay function will be unpredictable.
In conclusion, I suspect this will not be worth the trouble for SpaceX,.
As long at the extra transmitters and receivers will fit on the custom ASIC, it is a cheap way to get satellite to satellite relaying. Outfit each user router with two extra transmitter receiver pairs so it can do one bidirectional satellite to satellite link. Multiple links are done via multiple user terminals. This means the user terminal just transmits what it receives from one satellite to the other satellite until told to link up a different pair of satellites. Keep it stupid simple in design. Do all the real routing up in the satellites. It also means transmitting can start just a few bits after packet reception begins. That lowers latency. Edit: None of this relayed data will go down the link to the user WIFI/ethernet interface.
The whole "but I don't think it's FAAAAIIIR" argument is dumb. SpaceX could give a "discount" of like $20/month for allowing them to use the router, expecting basically everyone to take them up on the offer. Problem solved.Could they use final user apparatus unused band for relay?
Are they going to pay the final user for electricity they used?
The router is going to be on all the time anyway, so that it's ready immediately when any data comes through, so it's already going to be constantly using a baseline amount of energy to keep everything powered up. I don't know how much more it will use when it's actually transmitting. I doubt it will be optimized for low standby power the way cell phones are, so the power usage while transmitting might not be that much more than its standby power usage.
1. Idle router will consume less power.
2. SpaceX can't be sure the router is always on, the owner might lose power or turn it off at any moment, and they have no control.
3. The owner may start using the router at any moment and will expect to get the full capability, so again, the relay function will be unpredictable.
In conclusion, I suspect this will not be worth the trouble for SpaceX,.
Whether or not it's worth the trouble is a technical one beyond our scope.I think it would somewhere close to triple the ASIC chip area. That, development, and power to run the link receivers and transmitters are the costs. Most of the development needed for it is software that will run on the satellites. The extra transmitters, receivers, timing circuits, etc are just duplicates of the primary user one.
I doubt it. They’ll want to be able to handle multiple satellite streams anyway, in both directions. They could use the same capability to provide relay.Whether or not it's worth the trouble is a technical one beyond our scope.I think it would somewhere close to triple the ASIC chip area. That, development, and power to run the link receivers and transmitters are the costs. Most of the development needed for it is software that will run on the satellites. The extra transmitters, receivers, timing circuits, etc are just duplicates of the primary user one.
The whole "but I don't think it's FAAAAIIIR" argument is dumb. SpaceX could give a "discount" of like $20/month for allowing them to use the router, expecting basically everyone to take them up on the offer. Problem solved.Could they use final user apparatus unused band for relay?
Are they going to pay the final user for electricity they used?
The router is going to be on all the time anyway, so that it's ready immediately when any data comes through, so it's already going to be constantly using a baseline amount of energy to keep everything powered up. I don't know how much more it will use when it's actually transmitting. I doubt it will be optimized for low standby power the way cell phones are, so the power usage while transmitting might not be that much more than its standby power usage.
1. Idle router will consume less power.
2. SpaceX can't be sure the router is always on, the owner might lose power or turn it off at any moment, and they have no control.
3. The owner may start using the router at any moment and will expect to get the full capability, so again, the relay function will be unpredictable.
In conclusion, I suspect this will not be worth the trouble for SpaceX,.
Whether or not it's worth the trouble is a technical one beyond our scope.
Could they use final user apparatus unused band for relay?
Are they going to pay the final user for electricity they used?
The router is going to be on all the time anyway, so that it's ready immediately when any data comes through, so it's already going to be constantly using a baseline amount of energy to keep everything powered up. I don't know how much more it will use when it's actually transmitting. I doubt it will be optimized for low standby power the way cell phones are, so the power usage while transmitting might not be that much more than its standby power usage.
1. Idle router will consume less power.
2. SpaceX can't be sure the router is always on, the owner might lose power or turn it off at any moment, and they have no control.
3. The owner may start using the router at any moment and will expect to get the full capability, so again, the relay function will be unpredictable.
In conclusion, I suspect this will not be worth the trouble for SpaceX,.
A link between two satellites can handle multiple user data streams. Having multiple user terminals in an area allows multiple satellite to satellite links in the area. Also the number of links needed in any one area is not that large. I'd bet there would never be a need for more than a dozen in any one area.I doubt it. They’ll want to be able to handle multiple satellite streams anyway, in both directions. They could use the same capability to provide relay.Whether or not it's worth the trouble is a technical one beyond our scope.I think it would somewhere close to triple the ASIC chip area. That, development, and power to run the link receivers and transmitters are the costs. Most of the development needed for it is software that will run on the satellites. The extra transmitters, receivers, timing circuits, etc are just duplicates of the primary user one.
Again, not enough info.
^^ A ground station to connect multiple satellites could simply use multiple "consumer like" phased arrays transponders that are cheap because mass produced.I'd bet 16 of them would do it, and allow for failures so one doesn't have to send a tech out instantly. A 4 by 4 array of them could be placed on the roof of any convenient building, and provide internet connectivity for the building. All you'd need to add is a router to aggregate all the user side data streams into the link to the backbone.
Since most of the power and mass is used by the propulsion system, doubling the sat data throughput at beginning of 2021 without changing the mass or volume just by using more up date digital components.
Sorry, but this is impossible ..
If any Starlink consumer device could act as a relay station (including when on airplanes and ships) they could perhaps achieve very efficient and mostly in vacuum routing and better latency than fiber with no inter-satellite communications and not many ground stations.
You can use many user terminals together. That addresses the asymmetry.Sorry, but this is impossible ..
If any Starlink consumer device could act as a relay station (including when on airplanes and ships) they could perhaps achieve very efficient and mostly in vacuum routing and better latency than fiber with no inter-satellite communications and not many ground stations.
There are big difference between user terminal 40-50 cm dish size ,work in Ku band, small amplifier , cost less as 1000 USD and Gateway with 2,4 m dish size, work in Ka band, has powerful amplifier , cost up to 30000..50000 USD .
Data flow between user terminal and Satellite will be asymmetric from Satellite down to user terminal 200+ Mbits , but Up may be 30+ Mbits .. (in existing satellite network with GSO Satellites asymmetric ratio is 8..10 what is typical for internet users ).
You aren't making sense here, ka band is higher frequency, so a smaller array would allow the same directivity. The only reason to increase area would be for more power, but with good directivity it shouldn't be an issue. Your use of the term "dish," and baselessly high estimate for the higher frequency components makes it seem like you are stuck thinking of this in terms of legacy systems, and not the radical changes that Starlink has. Based on frequency allocations, it is not clear that there would be significant assymetry in typical user uplink and downlink available speeds.Sorry, but this is impossible ..
If any Starlink consumer device could act as a relay station (including when on airplanes and ships) they could perhaps achieve very efficient and mostly in vacuum routing and better latency than fiber with no inter-satellite communications and not many ground stations.
There are big difference between user terminal 40-50 cm dish size ,work in Ku band, small amplifier , cost less as 1000 USD and Gateway with 2,4 m dish size, work in Ka band, has powerful amplifier , cost up to 30000..50000 USD .
Data flow between user terminal and Satellite will be asymmetric from Satellite down to user terminal 200+ Mbits , but Up may be 30+ Mbits .. (in existing satellite network with GSO Satellites asymmetric ratio is 8..10 what is typical for internet users ).
The user terminals don't use Ka band.The current discussion is about using user terminals as relays stations though. The Ka band wouldn't need to be used necessarily, I just kept it in to address the backwards comment about antenna size and baseless assertion of needing more power and cost.
edit: SpaceX's initial gateways are using dishes.
Phased arrays aren't magic, they don't automatically give better performance in every criteria. They just have a huge advantage for non-GEO sats in that you don't have to keep repointing them.Also, on a related note, they can easily have a single antenna support effectively simultaneous beams in different directions, which is needed for relays. (Exactly how simultaneous the multiple beams are depends on system design.)
they can easily have a single antenna support effectively simultaneous beams in different directions, which is needed for relays.
Not even close, the simplest solution is just divide up the transmit time between the 2 directions. Digital signal processing makes the switching time effectively instantaneous. This is required user functionality for smooth handovers. With a relatively little bit more work, you can actually radiate in both directions truly simultaneously, probably with different center frequencies, but the same can work as well. Depending on the link budget, you may need to supply a bit more power, since power would split between beams, but this again is a detail affected by the specifics of the system architecture.they can easily have a single antenna support effectively simultaneous beams in different directions, which is needed for relays.
This is not "easily" , special if we speak about FPA /phase array antennas . If you want communicate with second Satellite you need another N radiators (for second antenna) . First N radiatotrs will be pointed on first satellite, second N on another..
But, main question is diifference in perfomanceAnd you continue to assert that the gateway antennas need to be bigger for no reason whatsoever. If enough power hits (and can be transmitted from) the user terminals, then they have enough area. There is no reason to assert that increased area is necessary.
user terminal antenna has 0,4x0,4 m = 0,16 m2 and Gateway antenna with 2,4 m diameter = 5,76 m2 or 36 ratio between Gateway and User terminal only for square.
Not forget about sinus (elevation angle) for FPA this is from 0,5...1,0 .
+ difference in amplifier power..
Relays are going to require higher bandwidth than user terminals, but not as much as gateways. Think about it, if they have the same bandwidth requirements as user terminals, they can only support a single user terminal connection through them at a time at most. User terminal relays is not ideal but may work for some purposes.But, main question is diifference in perfomanceAnd you continue to assert that the gateway antennas need to be bigger for no reason whatsoever. If enough power hits (and can be transmitted from) the user terminals, then they have enough area. There is no reason to assert that increased area is necessary.
user terminal antenna has 0,4x0,4 m = 0,16 m2 and Gateway antenna with 2,4 m diameter = 5,76 m2 or 36 ratio between Gateway and User terminal only for square.
Not forget about sinus (elevation angle) for FPA this is from 0,5...1,0 .
+ difference in amplifier power..
The basic point is that user terminals can absolutely act as relays, it is trivial that they could do it in the standard user configuration, since users already do the required minimum features of uplink and downlink, and there are multiple improvements possible with relatively minimal changes, which for all we know are baked into the user terminal design anyway, since those capabilities could also improve capabilities for users. Also, you seem to be stuck on asserting that a relay needs to use the same exact features as a gateway which is simply not true. Gateways have to be like super users, connecting the Starlink network to the internet at large. Relays just repeat data within the Starlink network. While a user terminal acting as a relay could in theory use the gateway bands, there is no reason it needs to to perform the relay function.
And you continue to assert that the gateway antennas need to be bigger for no reason whatsoever. If enough power hits (and can be transmitted from) the user terminals, then they have enough area. There is no reason to assert that increased area is necessary.Yes, I continue to assert that the gateway antennas need to be bigger for one small reason named physics.. or G/T (=Antenna gain-to-noise-temperature).
Relays are going to require higher bandwidth than user terminals, but not as much as gateways. Think about it, if they have the same bandwidth requirements as user terminals, they can only support a single user terminal connection through them at a time at most. User terminal relays is not ideal but may work for some purposes.A typical user does not use most of their bandwidth most of the time. Even if just one user's full bandwidth can pass through at the same time, this might be on average enough for say 10 customers. To ensure users can use their full bandwidth during handovers, the multiple satellite connection bandwidth possible in a standard user terminal may actually be double (or more) the advertised available to the user bandwidth. Depending on the architecture, this could be re-purposed for increased available relay bandwidth.
User terminal relays is not ideal but may work for some purposes.
And again, you have no basis to assert that SNR is insufficient in the user terminals for the given area. On the contrary, we know that it is sufficient, or the user terminals couldn't talk to the satellites in the first place.And you continue to assert that the gateway antennas need to be bigger for no reason whatsoever. If enough power hits (and can be transmitted from) the user terminals, then they have enough area. There is no reason to assert that increased area is necessary.Yes, I continue to assert that the gateway antennas need to be bigger for one small reason named physics.. or G/T (=Antenna gain-to-noise-temperature).
//https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_gain-to-noise-temperature
\\Satellite antenna aperture is closely related to quality factor (G/T value) of earth station.
The power what hit from satellite is limited (by power dencity ) and constant for all ground station.
If you want to have more power ( more signal-to-noise ratio = more MBits) you need increase antenna aperture (= size of antenna)..
Almost certainly mesh (although strict categorization may be an oversimplification.)User terminal relays is not ideal but may work for some purposes.
This is absolutely fundamental question !
What topology will have Starlink Network: Star or Mesh ??
And again, you have no basis to assert that SNR is insufficient in the user terminals for the given area. On the contrary, we know that it is sufficient, or the user terminals couldn't talk to the satellites in the first place."Talk " is of course interesting termin, but if we go to Mobile network , we can have 2 different cases
How many more starlink launches until it's operational for Canada and Northern US?
At least 4
When can we hear more about the starlink terminals?
@elonmusk : Looks like a thin, flat, round UFO on a stick. Starlink Terminal has motors to self-adjust optimal angle to view sky. Instructions are simply:
- Plug in socket
- Point at sky
These instructions work in either order. No training required.
Maybe a Starlink updates thread too Chris?
twitter.com/tobyliiiiiiiiii/status/1214481738610511872QuoteHow many more starlink launches until it's operational for Canada and Northern US?
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1214481860459237377QuoteAt least 4
Multiple simultaneous transmit and receive beams are possible on the same phased array antenna set. Receive frequencies can even be the same if there is enough angular distance between the sources. Yes it is harder, but that issue was solved decades ago. BTW. Checked out an analog ASIC library from one chip vendor. Transmitter and receiver elements already exist for ka and ku bands that could use the same antenna. I also saw variable delay elements in the same design library. Everything else was there that I could think of that would be needed to make a steerable phased array antenna.More important, very rarely will the full bandwidth be used. ISP tend to use this so the higher up links are far slower than the full bandwidth for all the users. Starlink will also use this. Who fewer starlink users it is in your area who faster will maximum speed be. its an reason why they see rural areas as main target. It would not work well in an large city if very many used it.
Many users won't be subscribed at the full data rate possible. Kinda like my minimal 24MBs when my fiber optic link can handle over a 1GBs. For efficiency those users will still transmit packets at the top speed, but in a time spaced manner so multiple users can use the same uplink frequency.
I may have missed this, but has anyone measured whether the new coating is having a substantial effect on reflectivity? Right now, the biggest risk for starlink is changes in regulation if more people start complaining about LEO sats ruining earth based observations.
I may have missed this, but has anyone measured whether the new coating is having a substantial effect on reflectivity? Right now, the biggest risk for starlink is changes in regulation if more people start complaining about LEO sats ruining earth based observations.
How Starlink is marketed and who and where customers sign up and pricing will be interesting. Price especially. Elon doesn't spend a lot on advertisement, so Starlink may challenge that idea.
I also wonder if Elon might be creating his own customer base with thousands of Tesla vehicles.
A rather obvious point, and probably frequently repeated:I also wonder if Elon might be creating his own customer base with thousands of Tesla vehicles.
...millions of Tesla vehicles.
I'm sure we will see this happen. It will be a paid service but yeah the data collection and revenue stream.
How do you not pursue that?
Edit: Satellite interlinks, that's going to be a fascinating development too. Then it can go Transocean and truly global.
With the Spaceflightnow announcement that SpaceX will be building a mobile payload service tower, and will look into larger, longer fairings, it has got me thinking... could they pack more starlink satellites on a F9 with a longer fairing, or are they up to their weight limit, too? Especially if they make the new larger fairings in house (not yet known obviously), even packing just 10 more satellites per launch could prove to be beneficial
Patricia Cooper, VP of satellite government affairs for SpaceX: we have started a “rich and pivotal exchange” on how our project is fitting in with astronomical observations. We call the science you’re doing, and want to ensure we don’t impede it. #AAS235
Patricia Cooper from SpaceX : value your science and committed not to impede it.
Cooper: with six to eight launches we will have enough Starlink satellites to provide continuous service in parts of US and Canada. With 24 launches, will be able to provide connectivity to most of the world. #AAS235
Cooper: the brightness of the first set of Starlink satellites took us by surprise. Working with experts convened by AAS on address this, making progress. Brightness is a factor of altitude and also orientation of the solar array. #AAS235
Cooper: what contributes to the brightness of the satellites has been a challenge; some contribution appears to come from surfaces that scatter or diffusely reflect light. Testing parking treatments to reduce their albedo on one experimental satellite in set launched Mon. #AAS235
Cooper: we’re confident at SpaceX we can reduce the brightness of future Starlink satellites so that they are not visible to the naked eye. #AAS235
Cooper: hope to work quickly to determine how effective the efforts to mitigate the brightness on the test Starlink satellite are and, if they are, implement them on future satellites. #AAS235
Multiple simultaneous transmit and receive beams are possible on the same phased array antenna set.I wrote a paper (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005RS003243) that addressed exactly this question. Check out Appendix B, which states
This appendix contains the math behind creating multiple beams from a phased array transmitter. We compute the tradeoff between number of transmitters, number of beams, and beam quality. We find the expected amplitude, power, phase noise, and determine the degradation if all transmitters have equal and fixed power [as opposed to variable amplitude].
I also wonder if Elon might be creating his own customer base with thousands of Tesla vehicles.
...millions of Tesla vehicles.
I'm sure we will see this happen. It will be a paid service but yeah the data collection and revenue stream.
How do you not pursue that?
Edit: Satellite interlinks, that's going to be a fascinating development too. Then it can go Transocean and truly global.
Quote from: peterabbit456Quote from: The_user_ofI got into some big arguments on here (as a phased array designer) about why they would not have horizon to horizon beam steering, for technical and cost considerations. You can save lots of money by limiting your scan volume, and you want to anyways for technical reasons.
What do you think the cost difference would be of the scan solid angle is a 90° cone vs a 120, 150, or 170° cone?
Edit: Remember they plan to print/manufacture these antennas by the millions. Enormous economies of scale come into play, as well as some parts in common between the satellites and the ground stations. The first prototype might cost a million dollars, but the millionth unit might cost $100. Such has been the case with laptop screens, except the fist color screen cost $2 million, and now they wholesale for about $10.
Let's start off with the cone angles.
A 170 degree cone is just impractical for two main reasons -- scan loss, and element density. These two conspire so that it's just not going to happen.
Typical scan loss (cosine losses) for a +85 degree scan is just off the charts. Take a paper plate, and put it in front of a fan facing it, so that it's catching maximum wind. Then then it to +85 degrees, so there's only a sliver of it in the wind. There's over an order of magnitude reduciton in wind force. That's just physics. The exact same thing happens with antennas, with the incident RF wave receive strength as an analog for wind force on the plate.
See here for a simple graph of what this looks like (blue dashed line): https://www.mwrf.com/technologies/components/article/21850061/analysis-of-a-24-to-30ghz-phased-array-for-5g-applications-part-2.
In RF, when scanning your beam also widens, gets ugly, you let in more interference, etc. You can also see that in the above paper, where it goes form being a nice pencil beam to a mis-shapen blob. That blob means extra receive noise, and that you're illuminating a bunch of extra open space with your transmit power, which isn't good either.
Then there's element density. To steer to +85 degrees, your element spacing has to be quite dense. This poses RF problems (mutual coupling, layout spacing and issues, etc) that spikes cost, and makes the design very, very tough. This is just a no-kidding spot where shit's hard. A typical design might do 0.55 lambda spacing, which gives you a 120 degree cone, and is typically considered about what the sweet spot is -- the elements now aren't so tightly packed as to make the RF problem very very hard to solve, you have fewer elements, saving cost, and so on.
See here for a grating lobe / scan angle / element density discussion:
https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/grating-lobes
So, from a physics standpoint a ~140-120 degree cone is a good starting point for how far you reasonably want to scan a phased array. You can build it reliably, and it performs pretty well inside of it's scan volume.
So, then let's talk about going down from there. If you sub-array your elements, you literally can save 50% of the cost of the expensive parts at the cost of some scan angle. I don't have my calculators in front of me with respect to sub-arraying and how it limits scan volume; but it's a bit complex depending upon final element spacing, and specific element patterns. But in many of the even costly military radars they sub-array some to save costs, heat, complexity, etc on the array and then maybe put in a small positioner like what was proposed here.
Sub-arraying is pretty compelling, and enormous scales only help somewhat. My phase shifter, I buy in quantities of >250k lots. It costs me $5. If I buy 500k, it costs be $4.95, and if I buy 1M it costs me $4.80. At above ten to one hundred thousand of something, depending upon the item, you've usually walked nearly the complete cost curve.
Like here's an LNA that it's an unnamed satellite radio module that gets put in tens of millions of cars a year. You can see that the quantity break cost curve has mostly been walked at a couple thousand of these. You can get a much better deal buying in tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands, but you're shaving pennies and dimes, not cutting the cost by signficant margins, whereas a simple sub-arraying and limiting scan angle might save you 40% in total system cost right off the bast, because you're eliminating almost half of your most expensive parts.
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Guerrilla-RF/GRF2093-W?qs=sGAEpiMZZMvlz5n0fllKWO6f6EkkxhmU7zMRsAjNNN8%3D
Then if you can shave a layer off your circuit board because you have fewer control signals to route, it can result in much more than 50% cost savings, and so on. But typically if you sub-array, for each element you subarray you can remove about 30-50% of your most expensive parts, and cut the power requirements, routing, and signal complexity down by double-digit percentages also. So, doing a 2x1 subarray (scan less further in azimuth or elevation, full scan in the other angle; so it's more a fan-angle or sector you can scan to rather than a cone), you get a big reduction. If you do a 2x2 sub-array (cone scan, smaller volume), you get that 30-50% parts reduction TWICE, and now you have like a quarter of the components, so you might be able to shave some layers on your board and stack extra savings.
Most of the stuff in use in this antenna is used in satellite radio, cellular towers, cell phones, GPS handsets, and so on. It's already produced in quantities of tens of millions of units a year. Starlink will be at a higher frequency, so yea they'll have to get quantities up to get reasonable prices, but the current IC market for cell phones, GPS handsets, satellite radio, etc shows how far you can drive these prices down, and how quantity affects that. Starlink antennas are going to be a drop in the bucket in the overall IC market, so they're not going to be able to drive this down via quantity over what we see now. They will likely custom make integrated ASICs and RFSoC's to drive component cost down, and try to make them big so they can service multiple elements, which can result in big cost savings. But then, subarraying and reducing scan angles again will just got those costs in half again, regardless of how much the scale helps you bring things down.
But the above reason is also why I think that they'll likely only have a single beam to start, and just switch it fast. Definitely only a single transmit beam (heat, cost, complexity of your really most expensive parts), and maaaybe two data beams (depending upon their integrated ASIC / RFSoC design). Digitally they can probably steer the beam at >1kHz rates (likely limited by the receiver and sampler to get enough SNR and samples to get a good reading, not the beamforming hardware), so taking your data beam and looking for another satellite real quick where you think it ought to be and peaking up on it (either form a difference beam, or 4-8 locations to do a psuedo-monopulse tracker) and then going back to your regularly scheduled programming will just take 1/100th of a second, so the user and the data streams won't notice it. Elon had previously said something about fast-switching, so fast the user can't notice it, so that's my thoughts on basic architecture. Everything I talked about for reducing costs upfront happens the other way when adding beams (in an analog architecture, which is what I think they'll use; the digitizers would blow their cost budget). So, they'll want to keep beams to a minimum and it's easily feasible for them to get it done with a single beam, so I think they will. That single beam will just be very agile, so it can "peak" around the sky and figure out it's handoffs without the user noticing :)
The filings said from 25 degrees above the horizon, which then suggests a zenith pointed antenna needs a 130 degree wide cone (180-25-25), consistent with the above post saying 120-140 is the reasonable manufacturability cost limits...
Maybe a Starlink updates thread too Chris?
twitter.com/tobyliiiiiiiiii/status/1214481738610511872QuoteHow many more starlink launches until it's operational for Canada and Northern US?
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1214481860459237377QuoteAt least 4
So March then, if they can hold a 2 week cadence.
How Starlink is marketed and who and where customers sign up and pricing will be interesting. Price especially. Elon doesn't spend a lot on advertisement, so Starlink may challenge that idea.
It's going to be really exciting to see how Starlink enters the market and public awareness this year. And how the network matures with each launch.
This is an amazing time to be alive.
Yep, but around two decades after the work I know of. Some students I knew made the transmitter and receiver chips in a VLSI course I was also taking. Some gov acronym I was already consulting for funded the rest of their project.Multiple simultaneous transmit and receive beams are possible on the same phased array antenna set.I wrote a paper (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005RS003243) that addressed exactly this question. Check out Appendix B, which statesQuoteThis appendix contains the math behind creating multiple beams from a phased array transmitter. We compute the tradeoff between number of transmitters, number of beams, and beam quality. We find the expected amplitude, power, phase noise, and determine the degradation if all transmitters have equal and fixed power [as opposed to variable amplitude].
A Superbowl ad might not be a bad idea. Let the customers also know that all profits go towards human spaceflight.
A Superbowl ad might not be a bad idea. Let the customers also know that all profits go towards human spaceflight.
They won't need to spend on ads at least for the first few years, current demand will be enough. And then he can tweet something fun and all major channels will gladly do the advertising for free :).
A Superbowl ad might not be a bad idea. Let the customers also know that all profits go towards human spaceflight.
They won't need to spend on ads at least for the first few years, current demand will be enough. And then he can tweet something fun and all major channels will gladly do the advertising for free :).
I don't see SpaceX selling services directly to end customers. They will probably reach a deal with established telecom companies around the world, and then these companies can deliver the final product, install the dishes, maintain the equipment...
IMO they'll just provide the infrastructure and let other commercially exploit it. They will be like the companies that build the cellular towers.
A Superbowl ad might not be a bad idea. Let the customers also know that all profits go towards human spaceflight.
They won't need to spend on ads at least for the first few years, current demand will be enough. And then he can tweet something fun and all major channels will gladly do the advertising for free :).
I don't see SpaceX selling services directly to end customers. They will probably reach a deal with established telecom companies around the world, and then these companies can deliver the final product, install the dishes, maintain the equipment...
IMO they'll just provide the infrastructure and let other commercially exploit it. They will be like the companies that build the cellular towers.
Do you mean the hardware installation and maintenance services, or the actual internet services?
I think that end customers will have a contract directly with SpaceX (or a wholly owned sub like Starlink) for internet services. Hardware installation and maintenance will probably be subbed out to independent contractors, or done by the customer. This is, to a large extent, the model that major telecoms already use.
SpaceX has made it pretty clear that they intend Starlink to be available direct to consumers. There's no point in building a mass-manufactured plug and play user terminal if they were only going to wholesale the service - then it would make far more sense to have a large, high power terminal that requires professional installation.
A Superbowl ad might not be a bad idea. Let the customers also know that all profits go towards human spaceflight.
They won't need to spend on ads at least for the first few years, current demand will be enough. And then he can tweet something fun and all major channels will gladly do the advertising for free :).
I don't see SpaceX selling services directly to end customers. They will probably reach a deal with established telecom companies around the world, and then these companies can deliver the final product, install the dishes, maintain the equipment...
IMO they'll just provide the infrastructure and let other commercially exploit it. They will be like the companies that build the cellular towers.
Do you mean the hardware installation and maintenance services, or the actual internet services?
I think that end customers will have a contract directly with SpaceX (or a wholly owned sub like Starlink) for internet services. Hardware installation and maintenance will probably be subbed out to independent contractors, or done by the customer. This is, to a large extent, the model that major telecoms already use.
SpaceX has made it pretty clear that they intend Starlink to be available direct to consumers. There's no point in building a mass-manufactured plug and play user terminal if they were only going to wholesale the service - then it would make far more sense to have a large, high power terminal that requires professional installation.
I'm still a bit skeptical about the end-user terminal going to be as simple as they claim. The average user doesn't know how to differentiate an optic from an ethernet cable. Even if it is just plug and play, you need to get that antenna on top of your house and install it. Different countries are going to have different regulations. It's not going to be the same to install it on a single house than on top of an apartment block.
That's why I think dealing with customer issues, equipment problems, regulations in different countries is going to be hard to manage for a company that now only builds and launches rockets and satellites. Being a telecom provider is a whole different story.
However, I wouldn't dare go against SpaceX and Musk giving how much they've been able to accomplish that 10 years ago would have seemed impossible.
All modern semi’s have fiberglass toppers so yes, should not be a problem.I also wonder if Elon might be creating his own customer base with thousands of Tesla vehicles.
...millions of Tesla vehicles.
I'm sure we will see this happen. It will be a paid service but yeah the data collection and revenue stream.
How do you not pursue that?
Edit: Satellite interlinks, that's going to be a fascinating development too. Then it can go Transocean and truly global.
Oddly enough, the ideal placement for a flat antenna (the alleged UFO on a stick) is at the roof peak, and the Model 3 has a continuous glass roof which basically prevents this. Tesla designed the Model 3 for manufacturability, specifically the roof/rear window were merged into a single continuous piece of glass, allowing easy interior access by robots on the manufacturing line. Model S has a more conventional roof, which could allow the antenna, provided there were holes in the roof for cable pass through (no hole grommets there currently, so would require drilling in for retrofits, while new builds would likely have some sort of disc limpet slapped on). Probably same for Model X. Model Y is built like the Model 3, so same roof problem. Cybertruck doesn't have a flat roof peak, so you would have to split the antenna in two? Semi likely has a radio transparent roof fairing so that shouldn't be too hard...
Quote from: envy887 link=topic=48297.msg2033625 ;) #msg2033625 date=1578588621A Superbowl ad might not be a bad idea. Let the customers also know that all profits go towards human spaceflight.
They won't need to spend on ads at least for the first few years, current demand will be enough. And then he can tweet something fun and all major channels will gladly do the advertising for free :) .
I don't see SpaceX selling services directly to end customers. They will probably reach a deal with established telecom companies around the world, and then these companies can deliver the final product, install the dishes, maintain the equipment...
IMO they'll just provide the infrastructure and let other commercially exploit it. They will be like the companies that build the cellular towers.
Do you mean the hardware installation and maintenance services, or the actual internet services?
I think that end customers will have a contract directly with SpaceX (or a wholly owned sub like Starlink) for internet services. Hardware installation and maintenance will probably be subbed out to independent contractors, or done by the customer. This is, to a large extent, the model that major telecoms already use.
SpaceX has made it pretty clear that they intend Starlink to be available direct to consumers. There's no point in building a mass-manufactured plug and play user terminal if they were only going to wholesale the service - then it would make far more sense to have a large, high power terminal that requires professional installation.
I'm still a bit skeptical about the end-user terminal going to be as simple as they claim. The average user doesn't know how to differentiate an optic from an ethernet cable. Even if it is just plug and play, you need to get that antenna on top of your house and install it. Different countries are going to have different regulations. It's not going to be the same to install it on a single house than on top of an apartment block.
That's why I think dealing with customer issues, equipment problems, regulations in different countries is going to be hard to manage for a company that now only builds and launches rockets and satellites. Being a telecom provider is a whole different story.
However, I wouldn't dare go against SpaceX and Musk giving how much they've been able to accomplish that 10 years ago would have seemed impossible.
Quick list of SpaceX UFO antenna patent applications
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180241122A1/
A Superbowl ad might not be a bad idea. Let the customers also know that all profits go towards human spaceflight.
They won't need to spend on ads at least for the first few years, current demand will be enough. And then he can tweet something fun and all major channels will gladly do the advertising for free :).
All of that probably doesn't even matter, the latest Starlink launch on youtube lists 1.2 million views. Part of Tesla's strategy is having existing users spread the word to friends and family. "Friends and family" of those 1.2 million viewers is a lot of people. I know if the price is anywhere near reasonable I will sign up immediately, and if it provides reasonable reliability I will recommend it to everyone I know. Actually I was just updating a friend on Starlink last night while we were dealing with internet connection problems between us that simply shouldn't have existed.A Superbowl ad might not be a bad idea. Let the customers also know that all profits go towards human spaceflight.
They won't need to spend on ads at least for the first few years, current demand will be enough. And then he can tweet something fun and all major channels will gladly do the advertising for free :).
SpaceX is about to get a huge free boost in media attention with the first humans launched into space from the US in almost 9 years, from a historic launch pad that SpaceX has put it’s stamp on. Part of that coverage will be preparations on the same site for launching Starship and related coverage of exciting new developments coming soon. There are a lot of people who haven’t ever paid attention to SpaceX that will become aware of it. All of this will seem new and surprising. Starlink is a natural part of this same major story and it won’t cost SpaceX a thing.
All of that probably doesn't even matter, the latest Starlink launch on youtube lists 1.2 million views. Part of Tesla's strategy is having existing users spread the word to friends and family. "Friends and family" of those 1.2 million viewers is a lot of people. I know if the price is anywhere near reasonable I will sign up immediately, and if it provides reasonable reliability I will recommend it to everyone I know. Actually I was just updating a friend on Starlink last night while we were dealing with internet connection problems between us that simply shouldn't have existed.A Superbowl ad might not be a bad idea. Let the customers also know that all profits go towards human spaceflight.
They won't need to spend on ads at least for the first few years, current demand will be enough. And then he can tweet something fun and all major channels will gladly do the advertising for free :).
SpaceX is about to get a huge free boost in media attention with the first humans launched into space from the US in almost 9 years, from a historic launch pad that SpaceX has put it’s stamp on. Part of that coverage will be preparations on the same site for launching Starship and related coverage of exciting new developments coming soon. There are a lot of people who haven’t ever paid attention to SpaceX that will become aware of it. All of this will seem new and surprising. Starlink is a natural part of this same major story and it won’t cost SpaceX a thing.
The one that doesn't climb is a defective satellite or deployment rods?
I also wonder if Elon might be creating his own customer base with thousands of Tesla vehicles.
...millions of Tesla vehicles.
I'm sure we will see this happen. It will be a paid service but yeah the data collection and revenue stream.
How do you not pursue that?
Edit: Satellite interlinks, that's going to be a fascinating development too. Then it can go Transocean and truly global.
Oddly enough, the ideal placement for a flat antenna (the alleged UFO on a stick) is at the roof peak, and the Model 3 has a continuous glass roof which basically prevents this. Tesla designed the Model 3 for manufacturability, specifically the roof/rear window were merged into a single continuous piece of glass, allowing easy interior access by robots on the manufacturing line. Model S has a more conventional roof, which could allow the antenna, provided there were holes in the roof for cable pass through (no hole grommets there currently, so would require drilling in for retrofits, while new builds would likely have some sort of disc limpet slapped on). Probably same for Model X. Model Y is built like the Model 3, so same roof problem. Cybertruck doesn't have a flat roof peak, so you would have to split the antenna in two? Semi likely has a radio transparent roof fairing so that shouldn't be too hard...
All of that probably doesn't even matter, the latest Starlink launch on youtube lists 1.2 million views. Part of Tesla's strategy is having existing users spread the word to friends and family. "Friends and family" of those 1.2 million viewers is a lot of people. I know if the price is anywhere near reasonable I will sign up immediately, and if it provides reasonable reliability I will recommend it to everyone I know. Actually I was just updating a friend on Starlink last night while we were dealing with internet connection problems between us that simply shouldn't have existed.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1214548764054216704QuoteWhen can we hear more about the starlink terminals?
@elonmusk : Looks like a thin, flat, round UFO on a stick. Starlink Terminal has motors to self-adjust optimal angle to view sky. Instructions are simply:
- Plug in socket
- Point at sky
These instructions work in either order. No training required.
Of course! Was wondering how they would get the cost of 3D phased array elements / controllers down to something reasonable --- the answer is turn the 3D phased array problem into a 1D phased array + 1D rotational antenna problem. The phased array handles elevation while the motor handles azimuth, probably at a relatively fixed beam width. Best part, the most precise part of steering, azimuth, is far cheaper to do with a motor than electronically.
(sorry if I'm stating the obvious for the gongora type experts, but the elements + signal processing of a 1D steered phased array is ~ roughly cube root cheaper than a full steerable formable 3D Phase Array, as the complexity of PA timing, elements & processing goes up exponentially by the dimension & beam form-ability.)
What I wonder most about now is the rotatable / slip ring data connector (assuming all the PA electronics go on the rotating part, that's how I would do it). Unless everything's on the rotating drum, data goes wirelessly only & only power goes through a rotating connector.https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1214548764054216704QuoteWhen can we hear more about the starlink terminals?
@elonmusk : Looks like a thin, flat, round UFO on a stick. Starlink Terminal has motors to self-adjust optimal angle to view sky. Instructions are simply:
- Plug in socket
- Point at sky
These instructions work in either order. No training required.
The antenna only needs a 2D grid of elements to track the satellites. Done smartly it could be laid over any shape, but it sounds like a flat disc is what it is. An array only steerable in one direction can't switch satellites fast enough to be not noticed. As for implementation. I'm betting there is one chip for handling that antenna array. There will be a few more chips for ethernet and WIFI. The self leveling was unexpected. I'd have expected it would just be mounted roughly level. I guess those at the northern and southern edges could tilt to the equator some for better coverage.
The last lot already had one satellite with that change. They'll introduce those changes gradually to test it. Once they fully introduce the new ones they can easily replace those that are already up there doing harm to astronomers by just deorbiting them and replacing them.
Exactly. We’ve had good discussions with leading astronomers. One way or another, we’ll make sure Starlink doesn’t inhibit new discoveries or change the character of the night sky.
Advancing humanity’s understanding of the Universe is a fundamental motivator for SpaceX! Starship can put giant 🔭 in orbit & on moon. With an occluder, could image 🌏 in other star systems.
Of course! Was wondering how they would get the cost of 3D phased array elements / controllers down to something reasonable --- the answer is turn the 3D phased array problem into a 1D phased array + 1D rotational antenna problem. The phased array handles elevation while the motor handles azimuth, probably at a relatively fixed beam width. Best part, the most precise part of steering, azimuth, is far cheaper to do with a motor than electronically.
(sorry if I'm stating the obvious for the gongora type experts, but the elements + signal processing of a 1D steered phased array is ~ roughly cube root cheaper than a full steerable formable 3D Phase Array, as the complexity of PA timing, elements & processing goes up exponentially by the dimension & beam form-ability.)
What I wonder most about now is the rotatable / slip ring data connector (assuming all the PA electronics go on the rotating part, that's how I would do it). Unless everything's on the rotating drum, data goes wirelessly only & only power goes through a rotating connector.
There‘s another position available on all Tesla cars that should offer a decent position, you can fully integrate an antenna to not affect the design/outline of the car, and installation can be done through a simple replacement...
Just integrate the antenna flush into the frunk cover. Someone who wants to retrofit to their old car just replaces the old frunk cover. Teslas limited choice in car colors certainly helps. No drilling through the body.
@GwynneShotwell, @SpaceX Pres & CEO: they are manufacturing 7 #satellites a day.
https://spacenews.com/starlinks-busy-launch-schedule-is-workable-says-45th-space-wing/
Consistent with launching 120/month.
https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1217427523421622272
1/3 Confirmation from @SpaceX: During the early mission phase we are in a low-drag configuration in which the back of the solar array will contribute to the brightness of the satellite. [Cont]
2/3 Because the surface area of the solar array is so much larger than the chassis, we expect the impact from the experimental coating to be less noticeable during this period. [Cont]
3/3 We are not using a special orientation for the darkened satellite.
https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1218018059077603329Quote1/3 Confirmation from @SpaceX: During the early mission phase we are in a low-drag configuration in which the back of the solar array will contribute to the brightness of the satellite. [Cont]
2/3 Because the surface area of the solar array is so much larger than the chassis, we expect the impact from the experimental coating to be less noticeable during this period. [Cont]
3/3 We are not using a special orientation for the darkened satellite.
OK
Why is "the back of the solar array" being lit by the sun?
Does each Starlink only have one thruster, so that it has to turn the entire spacecraft around the R-bar to go from boosting forward to thrusting retrograde? Would that be preferable to having engines on the "front" and the "back", which would allow quick switching, provide some redundancy for EOL deobiting, allow options for DAMs for collision avoidance, and allow for free choice of sides of the solar array that's in the sunlight, regardless of beta angle?
I thought that too, but there should never be a situation where that requires light hitting the back of the array. The array can rotate about its axis and you would rotate it 180 degrees about that axis so that you actually are generating power, which is kind of important when running any kind of ion engine continuously. You should be able to basically just leave it in that orientation, so that aspect doesn't really change as it circles the Earth.OK
Why is "the back of the solar array" being lit by the sun?
Does each Starlink only have one thruster, so that it has to turn the entire spacecraft around the R-bar to go from boosting forward to thrusting retrograde? Would that be preferable to having engines on the "front" and the "back", which would allow quick switching, provide some redundancy for EOL deobiting, allow options for DAMs for collision avoidance, and allow for free choice of sides of the solar array that's in the sunlight, regardless of beta angle?
I think the key here is low drag configuration. When the solar array is deployed it is the largest, by area, portion of the satellite. In low drag mode this will be orientated so that it is parallel to the direction of travel.
Not Starlink specific, but an informative talk about phased arrays to get familiar with how the satellites and base stations work:Great primer. Especially for the level of discussion here. A properly smart person should be able to go from it to a working Starlink system. Unlike radar, Starlink doesn't have to worry about side lobes except for frequency choice when multiple satellites are present.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytBmoL2wZLw
Quote1/3 Confirmation from @SpaceX: During the early mission phase we are in a low-drag configuration in which the back of the solar array will contribute to the brightness of the satellite. [Cont]
2/3 Because the surface area of the solar array is so much larger than the chassis, we expect the impact from the experimental coating to be less noticeable during this period. [Cont]
3/3 We are not using a special orientation for the darkened satellite.
OK
Why is "the back of the solar array" being lit by the sun?
Quote1/3 Confirmation from @SpaceX: During the early mission phase we are in a low-drag configuration in which the back of the solar array will contribute to the brightness of the satellite. [Cont]
2/3 Because the surface area of the solar array is so much larger than the chassis, we expect the impact from the experimental coating to be less noticeable during this period. [Cont]
3/3 We are not using a special orientation for the darkened satellite.
OK
Why is "the back of the solar array" being lit by the sun?
Emphasis mine.
It is not being lit by the Sun. At least, not directly.
You may have noticed that the Starlink satellites are most visible directly before sunrise and directly after sunset. What you see is the back of the solar arrays reflecting sunlight which was first reflected off Earth's atmosphere and surface. See image below.
It is good to remember that Earth's surface reflects between 10% to 25% of the incoming sunlight. Clouds in the atmosphere reflect roughly 50% of the incoming sunlight. That is quite a bit of light going back into space and some of it will hit the Starlink satellites.
I don't remember this being discussed - but I'm wondering, is there a good reason for having so many satellites in the higher shells (anything higher than 550km?), apart from maybe satellite lifetime and replacement costs? Given orbital debris mitigation concerns and astronomical interference concerns (they're brighter, but illuminated by the sun for far less time during the night), my feeling is that lower orbit satellites are generally better for space "environment." But is there some coverage / orbital mechanics reason for needing those higher shells? Is it possible that SpaceX ends up only launching satellites in lower shells?
Quote1/3 Confirmation from @SpaceX: During the early mission phase we are in a low-drag configuration in which the back of the solar array will contribute to the brightness of the satellite. [Cont]
2/3 Because the surface area of the solar array is so much larger than the chassis, we expect the impact from the experimental coating to be less noticeable during this period. [Cont]
3/3 We are not using a special orientation for the darkened satellite.
OK
Why is "the back of the solar array" being lit by the sun?
Emphasis mine.
It is not being lit by the Sun. At least, not directly.
You may have noticed that the Starlink satellites are most visible directly before sunrise and directly after sunset. What you see is the back of the solar arrays reflecting sunlight which was first reflected off Earth's atmosphere and surface. See image below.
It is good to remember that Earth's surface reflects between 10% to 25% of the incoming sunlight. Clouds in the atmosphere reflect roughly 50% of the incoming sunlight. That is quite a bit of light going back into space and some of it will hit the Starlink satellites.
This does not make sense from the perspective of geometry.
They would not be astronomically bright if they were reflecting the extended, diffuse Earth.
What light hits it would fade slowly as the view to the lit surface diminishes smoothly as the orbit proceeds over darkened ground.
The Starlink satellites have fairly constant brightness and fade quickly when they leave the direct sunlight.
It seems fair to say that the back sides of the solar arrays are sunlit for some reason.
(It’s good to remember not to be snarky. ;) )
Here we go. Astronomers doing economic analysis of Starlink assuming it will be sold worldwide for $60 USD.There are plenty of better places for this kind of idiocy.
Agreed. Some points of reference for anyone who wants to argue against such things elsewhere in no particular order:Here we go. Astronomers doing economic analysis of Starlink assuming it will be sold worldwide for $60 USD.There are plenty of better places for this kind of idiocy.
Here we go. Astronomers doing economic analysis of Starlink assuming it will be sold worldwide for $60 USD.
https://twitter.com/chmn_victor/status/1218847154833412096
Here we go. Astronomers doing economic analysis of Starlink assuming it will be sold worldwide for $60 USD.
https://twitter.com/chmn_victor/status/1218847154833412096
To be fair, I think that's just a student in astronomy and not a professional astronomer of any sort. Probably not worth commenting on, even, honestly...
Guess we've just gotten used to getting our SpaceX related 'news' from Twitter?
Not giving the astronomer economic analysis any credence but it did make me think a bit about the model likely to be used in under served parts of the world.
If you are looking at a village in Africa or South America, I don't think you are going to see each individual home having a Starlink antenna on top. More likely there will be a village or neighborhood hub with a Starlink station and a WiFi router. For a really isolated area, you may add in a couple of solar panels and a battery pack. The cost would be several thousand dollars, but would likely be either spread across several dozen households or paid for by an economic development grant. Combined with WiFi telephony, a lot of very isolated areas could be brought on the grid for a reasonable per user cost.
...
Anywho, yeah, I'd argue that better Internet connectivity is likely to be worth a more substantial portion of GDP in developing countries than a developed one. With that said, someone would need to do a cost-benefit analysis, because, well, mobile coverage does already exist in a lot of areas now, and it's not clear what Starlink would add. The scenario you proposed (central Starlink/WiFi stations) certainly sounds like the appropriate type of solution in poorer developing countries - central charging stations in towns are already apparently a common solution (before those, people might've had to travel to recharge their phone batteries...)
Here we go. Astronomers doing economic analysis of Starlink assuming it will be sold worldwide for $60 USD.
https://twitter.com/chmn_victor/status/1218847154833412096
I have been looking for companies that might be suppliers for SpaceX in the Starlink system. Since it is almost impossible to invest in SpaceX stock directly, I figure the best alternative is the suppliers that might provide equipment.
Gilat Satellite Networks seems like a probable supplier. Symbol is GILT on NASDAQ. They make much of the network gear needed on the ground, on planes or on ships to communicate with satellites. They also have products that they are testing with LEO sats.
Just an idea. I am interested if you guys know of other possible ways to indirectly invest in Starlink, OneWeb, etc Thanks
Though I am sure SpaceX has run the trades, I wonder how many sats they could launch and still return the booster to land? Fairing recovery would remain problematic.
Launch hardware and finished sats waiting around and/or piling up while waiting for weather has the potential to frustrate ambitions for two-a-week launch cadence. Sometimes slips will result in having to wait around for business at other pads to clear out, further stymying Starlink launches.
Though I am sure SpaceX has run the trades, I wonder how many sats they could launch and still return the booster to land? Fairing recovery would remain problematic.Consider this, by this time next year they will all be Starship launches with over 5X the satellites per launch. So they miss a few F9 launches this year due to bad weather. They will be back on track waiting for the factory to produce more Starlink satellites as soon as they do their first or second Starship orbital launch. I expect they have plans to increase the production rate.
Launch hardware and finished sats waiting around and/or piling up while waiting for weather has the potential to frustrate ambitions for two-a-week launch cadence. Sometimes slips will result in having to wait around for business at other pads to clear out, further stymying Starlink launches.
They have shown they can launch from two pads within hours and have two droneships in the Atlantic, so I wouldn't be too worried. They also have enough cores that two prepared Starlink missions at any time are not holding up business elsewhere.
Though I am sure SpaceX has run the trades, I wonder how many sats they could launch and still return the booster to land? Fairing recovery would remain problematic.Consider this, by this time next year they will all be Starship launches with over 5X the satellites per launch. So they miss a few F9 launches this year due to bad weather. They will be back on track waiting for the factory to produce more Starlink satellites as soon as they do their first or second Starship orbital launch. I expect they have plans to increase the production rate.
Launch hardware and finished sats waiting around and/or piling up while waiting for weather has the potential to frustrate ambitions for two-a-week launch cadence. Sometimes slips will result in having to wait around for business at other pads to clear out, further stymying Starlink launches.
This too:They have shown they can launch from two pads within hours and have two droneships in the Atlantic, so I wouldn't be too worried. They also have enough cores that two prepared Starlink missions at any time are not holding up business elsewhere.
Is it maybe time for a dedicated Starlink forum?
A question: why isn't SpaceX using F9H to lunch starlink? it should be cheaper no?
Is it a matter of production bottlenecks in the amount of satellites manufactured, is it a matter of volume in the fairing (already maximised in a F9) or are there other issues?
Apologies if this has already been posted, but on January 16, SpaceX met with the FCC regarding the draft rule for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. I vaguely remember SpaceX saying that they were not interested in this, but maybe they would be if the final rule is positive for megaconstellations.
Some $20 billion over ten years is at stake.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1012068447797/Rural%20Broadband%20Fund%20Ex%20Parte.pdf (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1012068447797/Rural%20Broadband%20Fund%20Ex%20Parte.pdf)
Musk’s SpaceX Plans a Spinoff, IPO for Starlink Business
By Ashlee Vance and Dana Hull
6 February 2020, 17:19 GMT
Updated on 6 February 2020, 17:48 GMT
Company to provide high-speed internet globally via satellite
Service will cost less for much faster speed, Shotwell says
Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. plans to spin out its budding space internet system Starlink and pursue an initial public offering.
SpaceX has already launched more than 240 satellites to build out Starlink, which will start delivering internet services to customers from space this summer, President Gwynne Shotwell said Thursday at a private investor event hosted by JPMorgan Chase & Co. in Miami.
“Right now, we are a private company, but Starlink is the right kind of business that we can go ahead and take public,” said Shotwell, SpaceX’s chief operating officer. “That particular piece is an element of the business that we are likely to spin out and go public.”
was this a part of her speech or the answer to a question. The difference is fundamental.QuoteMusk’s SpaceX Plans a Spinoff, IPO for Starlink Business
By Ashlee Vance and Dana Hull
6 February 2020, 17:19 GMT
Updated on 6 February 2020, 17:48 GMT
Company to provide high-speed internet globally via satellite
Service will cost less for much faster speed, Shotwell says
Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. plans to spin out its budding space internet system Starlink and pursue an initial public offering.
SpaceX has already launched more than 240 satellites to build out Starlink, which will start delivering internet services to customers from space this summer, President Gwynne Shotwell said Thursday at a private investor event hosted by JPMorgan Chase & Co. in Miami.
“Right now, we are a private company, but Starlink is the right kind of business that we can go ahead and take public,” said Shotwell, SpaceX’s chief operating officer. “That particular piece is an element of the business that we are likely to spin out and go public.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/spacex-likely-to-spin-off-starlink-business-and-pursue-an-ipo
Not surprising or even unanticipated, but nice to make it official. No mention made of timeline, but you'd think this year given they are planning on offering services this year.
SpaceX official confirms @valleyhack @danahull scoop on Starlink splitting off for an IPO - The company is considering taking Starlink public, but will not officially do so until several years from now, a company employee tells Reuters.
Yeah, about those inter-satellite links... What are these parabolic RF reflectors for? Seems like this sort of thing (if you have multiples of them) could be used for ISLs. But what are they? They're on all the v1.0 Starlinks.
A simple low gain stub should be enough for that. Command and control shouldn't be that much data.Yeah, about those inter-satellite links... What are these parabolic RF reflectors for? Seems like this sort of thing (if you have multiples of them) could be used for ISLs. But what are they? They're on all the v1.0 Starlinks.
I assumed they're backup antenna for command & control in case the phase array doesn't work.
Yeah, about those inter-satellite links... What are these parabolic RF reflectors for? Seems like this sort of thing (if you have multiples of them) could be used for ISLs. But what are they? They're on all the v1.0 Starlinks.
Yeah, about those inter-satellite links... What are these parabolic RF reflectors for? Seems like this sort of thing (if you have multiples of them) could be used for ISLs. But what are they? They're on all the v1.0 Starlinks.
I've wondered if they would install satellite to satellite links via RF initially rather than have no links until the lasers are ready. The satellite in front of you or behind you in the same orbital plane should be easy to target with a simple directional RF antennae. If you're out of range of a base station you can just shuttle the data packets to the next satellite and so on till you reach a satellite with connectivity to a base station.
I've wondered if they would install satellite to satellite links via RF initially rather than have no links until the lasers are ready. The satellite in front of you or behind you in the same orbital plane should be easy to target with a simple directional RF antennae. If you're out of range of a base station you can just shuttle the data packets to the next satellite and so on till you reach a satellite with connectivity to a base station.
Wouldn't they have needed to apply specifically to the FCC to use RF that way before launch?
Not surprising or even unanticipated, but nice to make it official. No mention made of timeline, but you'd think this year given they are planning on offering services this year.
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1225493364151398400QuoteSpaceX official confirms @valleyhack @danahull scoop on Starlink splitting off for an IPO - The company is considering taking Starlink public, but will not officially do so until several years from now, a company employee tells Reuters.
On the subject of inter-satellite links, apparently OneWeb is saying that some governments won't like the fact that Starlink has them?
.@OneWeb: Here's how we win against @SpaceX Starlink: First, they may have intersatellite links, a threat to govts. Second, well, they're American.http://bit.ly/2H2wGox
Not surprising or even unanticipated, but nice to make it official. No mention made of timeline, but you'd think this year given they are planning on offering services this year.
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1225493364151398400QuoteSpaceX official confirms @valleyhack @danahull scoop on Starlink splitting off for an IPO - The company is considering taking Starlink public, but will not officially do so until several years from now, a company employee tells Reuters.
This is surprising as I thought Starlink was going to be used to fund Starship and Mars although perhaps only a small percentage of shares will be sold.
It's interesting that OneWeb's claim for how they will beat SpaceX only mentions political factors. That's not a ringing endorsement of their confidence in their technical superiority.
It's interesting that OneWeb's claim for how they will beat SpaceX only mentions political factors. That's not a ringing endorsement of their confidence in their technical superiority.
It's also not a particularly convincing argument.
If you have a profitable business, you can use the profits to fund other things. No need to sell any of the business.
This is surprising as I thought Starlink was going to be used to fund Starship and Mars although perhaps only a small percentage of shares will be sold.
If you have a profitable business, you can use the profits to fund other things. No need to sell any of the business.
If you have a profitable business, you can use the profits to fund other things. No need to sell any of the business.
There are a few advantages to selling some of the business, though. For one thing, you get a very big chunk of money up front, instead of waiting years for profits to build up.
If you have a profitable business, you can use the profits to fund other things. No need to sell any of the business.
There are a few advantages to selling some of the business, though. For one thing, you get a very big chunk of money up front, instead of waiting years for profits to build up.
Sure. I'm not saying there's no reason to sell some of it, or even potentially all of it under the right circumstances.
I was just responding to a poster who was expressing surprise SpaceX wouldn't spin out Starlink right away because they said they wanted Starlink to fund Starship and Mars plans. I was pointing out that it's an option to hold onto it and use the cash it generates to fund those other things.
Musk's a patient man, relatively speaking.If you have a profitable business, you can use the profits to fund other things. No need to sell any of the business.
There are a few advantages to selling some of the business, though. For one thing, you get a very big chunk of money up front, instead of waiting years for profits to build up.
As Tesla notes on their website: "Tesla has never declared dividends on our common stock. We intend on retaining all future earnings to finance future growth and therefore, do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future."
Wait a few years for Starlink to appreciate, do an IPO for 20 billion or so for a a 40% stake, seems to me like its free money? If SpaceX owns all of the shares sold, the money goes to them for the Mars project.
It seems to me that it would be more lucrative to SpaceX to have the revenue from Starlink on their own books, but I am no financier.
As Tesla notes on their website: "Tesla has never declared dividends on our common stock. We intend on retaining all future earnings to finance future growth and therefore, do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future."
Wait a few years for Starlink to appreciate, do an IPO for 20 billion or so for a a 40% stake, seems to me like its free money? If SpaceX owns all of the shares sold, the money goes to them for the Mars project.
It seems to me that it would be more lucrative to SpaceX to have the revenue from Starlink on their own books, but I am no financier.
Why issue a 40% stake for $20bn, when you could rather wait 10 years and offer it for $200bn? Or even better, never go public and keep all the profits?
The only reason to do an IPO is if you are cash strapped in the short term and need the new capital. For example, I bet Elon would rather have back the 10% stake he gave Google for a measly $1bn since that 10% stake would now be worth far more than $1bn.
If I was Elon I would rather max out my loans against Tesla stock and pump that into SpaceX to fund Starlink, and then sit back and rake in ALL the billions of revenue once Starlink is operational, than give some of it away at a relative steal now.
Anyway, Elon is a very smart guy. I’m betting Shotwell’s “in a few years” is a bit further in the future than some commentators are interpreting it as.
The longer they delay, the more they can get for the shares. And at the same time, if they can delay long enough, they NEVER have to go public. Which would be first prize. Just look at Elon’s comments about the downsides of being a public company, and about wanting to take Tesla private again.
Much depends on how cash strapped they are to fund the rapid scaling required and how soon they can start earning initial revenues from Starlink to internally fund that required growth.
As Tesla notes on their website: "Tesla has never declared dividends on our common stock. We intend on retaining all future earnings to finance future growth and therefore, do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future."
Wait a few years for Starlink to appreciate, do an IPO for 20 billion or so for a a 40% stake, seems to me like its free money? If SpaceX owns all of the shares sold, the money goes to them for the Mars project.
It seems to me that it would be more lucrative to SpaceX to have the revenue from Starlink on their own books, but I am no financier.
Why issue a 40% stake for $20bn, when you could rather wait 10 years and offer it for $200bn? Or even better, never go public and keep all the profits?
The only reason to do an IPO is if you are cash strapped in the short term and need the new capital. For example, I bet Elon would rather have back the 10% stake he gave Google for a measly $1bn since that 10% stake would now be worth far more than $1bn.
If I was Elon I would rather max out my loans against Tesla stock and pump that into SpaceX to fund Starlink, and then sit back and rake in ALL the billions of revenue once Starlink is operational, than give some of it away at a relative steal now.
Anyway, Elon is a very smart guy. I’m betting Shotwell’s “in a few years” is a bit further in the future than some commentators are interpreting it as.
The longer they delay, the more they can get for the shares. And at the same time, if they can delay long enough, they NEVER have to go public. Which would be first prize. Just look at Elon’s comments about the downsides of being a public company, and about wanting to take Tesla private again.
Much depends on how cash strapped they are to fund the rapid scaling required and how soon they can start earning initial revenues from Starlink to internally fund that required growth.
SpaceX will need to make a stream of investment outlays over the next decade or more to get a Starship fleet operational and a Mars colony started. They probably already have a rough idea of when they will need various relative outlays to get those things going.
Since it is not a perfect world, it is almost certain that their Starlink earnings stream will not match their outlay requirements well at all. Selling equity at the right time is one way to close those gaps.
Something else that may be playing into it is that they may have identified another big business opportunity beyond Starlink that they will need a big chunk of $$ down the road to get started.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/spacex-likely-to-spin-off-starlink-business-and-pursue-an-ipo
Shotwell said that service will be “less than what you are paying now for about five to 10 times the speed you are getting.”
I'd assume that is in relationship to current satellite offerings. If they offered standard user links 5X as fast as mine, I'd be shocked, and there would be a stampede for their service.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/spacex-likely-to-spin-off-starlink-business-and-pursue-an-ipo
IPO discussion aside, this article does have a good quote about what to expect from Starlink in terms of price/speed:QuoteShotwell said that service will be “less than what you are paying now for about five to 10 times the speed you are getting.”
I'd assume that is in relationship to current satellite offerings. If they offered standard user links 5X as fast as mine, I'd be shocked, and there would be a stampede for their service.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/spacex-likely-to-spin-off-starlink-business-and-pursue-an-ipo
IPO discussion aside, this article does have a good quote about what to expect from Starlink in terms of price/speed:QuoteShotwell said that service will be “less than what you are paying now for about five to 10 times the speed you are getting.”
A successful Starlink would be much bigger than the SpaceX launch business and would begin to resemble a utility. This would change the nature of SpaceX in many ways. Not wanting to run a utility could be sufficient reason to spin Starlink off.
A successful Starlink would be much bigger than the SpaceX launch business and would begin to resemble a utility. This would change the nature of SpaceX in many ways. Not wanting to run a utility could be sufficient reason to spin Starlink off.
I'd assume that is in relationship to current satellite offerings. If they offered standard user links 5X as fast as mine, I'd be shocked, and there would be a stampede for their service.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/spacex-likely-to-spin-off-starlink-business-and-pursue-an-ipo
IPO discussion aside, this article does have a good quote about what to expect from Starlink in terms of price/speed:QuoteShotwell said that service will be “less than what you are paying now for about five to 10 times the speed you are getting.”
I disagree. I don't think Shotwell is thinking in terms of replacing the GEO satellite internet that has a tiny fraction of the overall market. I think Shotwell is aiming squarely and Comcast. I take her comment in that light.
And I think there will be a stampeded for their service.
Musk wants to see more than boots and footprints in his life. He wants to ramp up the size of the fleet and be able to subsidize the launches. So wait a few years, sell Starlink with SpaceX as a major shareholder. Now you have access to a pile of money when you need it rather than as it "dribbles in" as profits.Not surprising or even unanticipated, but nice to make it official. No mention made of timeline, but you'd think this year given they are planning on offering services this year.
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1225493364151398400QuoteSpaceX official confirms @valleyhack @danahull scoop on Starlink splitting off for an IPO - The company is considering taking Starlink public, but will not officially do so until several years from now, a company employee tells Reuters.
This is surprising as I thought Starlink was going to be used to fund Starship and Mars although perhaps only a small percentage of shares will be sold.
If you have a profitable business, you can use the profits to fund other things. No need to sell any of the business.
Somebody needs to ask EM what expected Starlink data rates are. I doubt there will be an answer as that could help competitors.
Somebody needs to ask EM what expected Starlink data rates are. I doubt there will be an answer as that could help competitors.The US Air Force already did tests on a plane (I believe a Hercules), and got 800Mbit downstream. Pretty decent if you ask me ;)
what’s the confusion about? Theyll get the money up-front FOR MARS. Could be an enormously valuable company. Comcast is worth $200 billion.Not surprising or even unanticipated, but nice to make it official. No mention made of timeline, but you'd think this year given they are planning on offering services this year.
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1225493364151398400QuoteSpaceX official confirms @valleyhack @danahull scoop on Starlink splitting off for an IPO - The company is considering taking Starlink public, but will not officially do so until several years from now, a company employee tells Reuters.
This is surprising as I thought Starlink was going to be used to fund Starship and Mars although perhaps only a small percentage of shares will be sold.
Somebody needs to ask EM what expected Starlink data rates are. I doubt there will be an answer as that could help competitors.
Somebody needs to ask EM what expected Starlink data rates are. I doubt there will be an answer as that could help competitors.
Bigger question is how much data you can use before being deprioritized. Current consumer satellite internet plans are about 50 GB every month before deprioritization.
what’s the confusion about? Theyll get the money up-front FOR MARS. Could be an enormously valuable company. Comcast is worth $200 billion.Not surprising or even unanticipated, but nice to make it official. No mention made of timeline, but you'd think this year given they are planning on offering services this year.
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1225493364151398400 (https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1225493364151398400)QuoteSpaceX official confirms @valleyhack @danahull scoop on Starlink splitting off for an IPO - The company is considering taking Starlink public, but will not officially do so until several years from now, a company employee tells Reuters.
This is surprising as I thought Starlink was going to be used to fund Starship and Mars although perhaps only a small percentage of shares will be sold.
...what’s the confusion about? Theyll get the money up-front FOR MARS. Could be an enormously valuable company. Comcast is worth $200 billion.
This is surprising as I thought Starlink was going to be used to fund Starship and Mars although perhaps only a small percentage of shares will be sold.
Viasat user here, on the "unlimited" tier at 100 GB for about $155.00 a month. And unlimited is in quotes because "after that threshold your traffic may be prioritized below other users" translates to "sharp throttling starting at 100.01 GB."
Starlink needs to beat or meet that for me to sign up, but I'm thinking that won't be too hard...
...what’s the confusion about? Theyll get the money up-front FOR MARS. Could be an enormously valuable company. Comcast is worth $200 billion.
This is surprising as I thought Starlink was going to be used to fund Starship and Mars although perhaps only a small percentage of shares will be sold.
Exactly. Time is money. Going public may give them money sooner rather than later, which has value and also provide more fungible financial vehicles. Question as always is timing. If you don't get the timing right you pay more for the $ than you need... too soon and you've sold yourself short and given too much away... too late and you've given up the benefits that earlier cash infusions could bring.
Musk's financial crew must certainly be experts on those points given the history of Musk's various public-private endeavors. I don't expect there will be a rush to go public as we have seen with some others. Musk can likely get what $ he needs from private markets; if he decides to go public it is because the numbers say it is the better-cheaper option to obtain those $.
How much of that is down-link broadcast traffic? Broadcast as in "what a bunch of other people are likely to be watching at a similar time--and with which a smarter edge-end device might significantly reduce satellite load?"This is much trickier than broadcast TV/Satellite/Cable (where everyone watches the same thing at the same time) but some gains should be possible. Caching on the terrestrial end and serving multiple customers from one data stream could definitely help, if the number of customers served by the node is big enough that there is predictable overlap.
That is one potentially large market that could be addressed through some additional smarts-buffering-caching-whatever in the edge-end device (e.g., point-to-multi-point such as HBO, Netflix, Disney, ...).
I think SpaceX has a cash flow issue. Launches are not lucrative enough to fund Starlink full deployment, Starship R&D and all the facilities buildout.
In the past there were indications that SpaceX was just breaking even without developing and building Starlink sats and launching them, and developing Starship.
In the past there were indications that SpaceX was just breaking even without developing and building Starlink sats and launching them, and developing Starship.
Citation needed.
I think SpaceX has a cash flow issue. Launches are not lucrative enough to fund Starlink full deployment, Starship R&D and all the facilities buildout.
"Not lucrative enough" may be almost an euphemism. In the past there were indications that SpaceX was just breaking even without developing and building Starlink sats and launching them, and developing Starship. And this is before amassing F9 launches for Starlink and going seriously into Starship.
They have raised some money but they may know very well that this isn't going to be enough by far to deploy Starlink at scale, to sell Starlink globally and to get Starship fully operational.
I think SpaceX has a cash flow issue. Launches are not lucrative enough to fund Starlink full deployment, Starship R&D and all the facilities buildout.
"Not lucrative enough" may be almost an euphemism. In the past there were indications that SpaceX was just breaking even without developing and building Starlink sats and launching them, and developing Starship. And this is before amassing F9 launches for Starlink and going seriously into Starship.
They have raised some money but they may know very well that this isn't going to be enough by far to deploy Starlink at scale, to sell Starlink globally and to get Starship fully operational.
SpaceX raised ~$1.3B in the past 18 months, plus issued $250M of debt, this should be enough to get the initial 1,584 satellite constellation deployed and operational.
As for Starship, I suspect MZ is funding it, maybe Elon is adding some of his own money (borrowing against Tesla stock shares), they do seem to have turned on additional funding recently, based on the increased activity at Boca Chica. I think Elon mentioned somewhere they have enough money to get it to LEO.
Getting further than this (bigger constellation, Starship to the Moon/Mars) would probably require further investment, they do have several channels for these: debt, stock, government contract, private customers.
In the past there were indications that SpaceX was just breaking even without developing and building Starlink sats and launching them, and developing Starship.
Citation needed.
Somebody needs to ask EM what expected Starlink data rates are. I doubt there will be an answer as that could help competitors.
Bigger question is how much data you can use before being deprioritized. Current consumer satellite internet plans are about 50 GB every month before deprioritization.
Viasat user here, on the "unlimited" tier at 100 GB for about $155.00 a month. And unlimited is in quotes because "after that threshold your traffic may be prioritized below other users" translates to "sharp throttling starting at 100.01 GB."
Starlink needs to beat or meet that for me to sign up, but I'm thinking that won't be too hard...
Do we know why there is only one Starlink launch in February? No other SpaceX launches in that month so there should be capacity to launch a second.
Do we know why there is only one Starlink launch in February? No other SpaceX launches in that month so there should be capacity to launch a second.
Well, February is the shortest month of the year, they launched on January 28, they plan to launch Feb 15, and they plan to launch again near the start of March. So, they seem to have the launches just a bit more than two weeks apart.
I'd say they're close to a twice-a-month schedule but it just happens that only one of them happens to fall in February.
I do have to say I'm happy to see where at a point where we so expect to see a twice-a-month Starlink launch rate that it requires an explanation if there's a single month without two launches.
I know many in the same boat. 6 miles east of me they can't even get DSL. It's satellite, or 3G. This weekend I heard of two new point to point WIFI links across the divide. When I WIFI linked my north barn to my house site it started a cascade. Mine's only a mile. The links these farmers are putting up are up to 20 miles.Somebody needs to ask EM what expected Starlink data rates are. I doubt there will be an answer as that could help competitors.
Bigger question is how much data you can use before being deprioritized. Current consumer satellite internet plans are about 50 GB every month before deprioritization.
Viasat user here, on the "unlimited" tier at 100 GB for about $155.00 a month. And unlimited is in quotes because "after that threshold your traffic may be prioritized below other users" translates to "sharp throttling starting at 100.01 GB."
Starlink needs to beat or meet that for me to sign up, but I'm thinking that won't be too hard...
HughesNet user here. I do not believe it will take much to have all existing satellite internet users to switch to Starlink. I do not have any experience with Viasat but looking at their offerings it is very similar to HN. The day Starlink becomes available to me is the day I make the switch. HN is very costly, with low speeds, low usage limits, and high latency.
But then there need to be plenty of months where they need 3 launches to get near their goal of 35.It's a goal. If they need a month or two extra to hit that goal, I really don't see the problem. If they're short more than a couple of months launches that's indicative of a bigger issue along the way.
Also one full load on a Starship will catch them up 3 months.But then there need to be plenty of months where they need 3 launches to get near their goal of 35.It's a goal. If they need a month or two extra to hit that goal, I really don't see the problem. If they're short more than a couple of months launches that's indicative of a bigger issue along the way.
I wouldn't count on Starship happening in the timeframe of the initial deployment of Starlink.Also one full load on a Starship will catch them up 3 months.But then there need to be plenty of months where they need 3 launches to get near their goal of 35.It's a goal. If they need a month or two extra to hit that goal, I really don't see the problem. If they're short more than a couple of months launches that's indicative of a bigger issue along the way.
Also one full load on a Starship will catch them up 3 months.But then there need to be plenty of months where they need 3 launches to get near their goal of 35.It's a goal. If they need a month or two extra to hit that goal, I really don't see the problem. If they're short more than a couple of months launches that's indicative of a bigger issue along the way.
I wouldn't count on Starship happening in the timeframe of the initial deployment of Starlink.Also one full load on a Starship will catch them up 3 months.But then there need to be plenty of months where they need 3 launches to get near their goal of 35.It's a goal. If they need a month or two extra to hit that goal, I really don't see the problem. If they're short more than a couple of months launches that's indicative of a bigger issue along the way.
Do we know why there is only one Starlink launch in February? No other SpaceX launches in that month so there should be capacity to launch a second.
Well, February is the shortest month of the year, they launched on January 28, they plan to launch Feb 15, and they plan to launch again near the start of March. So, they seem to have the launches just a bit more than two weeks apart.
I'd say they're close to a twice-a-month schedule but it just happens that only one of them happens to fall in February.
I do have to say I'm happy to see where at a point where we so expect to see a twice-a-month Starlink launch rate that it requires an explanation if there's a single month without two launches.
But then there need to be plenty of months where they need 3 launches to get near their goal of 35.
But then there need to be plenty of months where they need 3 launches to get near their goal of 35.
I have no real knowledge of the details... however as seems generally understood:But then there need to be plenty of months where they need 3 launches to get near their goal of 35.
I vaguely remember reading some press releases from the AF (or space force, I guess) that they were working on increasing their maximum launch cadence. I get this feeling there's a lot of range support, coordination among launches at the range, and some weather effects that have been limiting their maximum launch cadence.
Anyone know if KSC and the cape are run by separate personnel? Wondering if being able to launch at 39A for commercial launches would help them reach that goal. IIRC there's some FCC filing for the launch early March that would give them the option to use either pad for Starlink.
Just as an interesting data point, yesterday I came across what Google charges for data. Especially in regions where they didn't invest in their own infrastructure, 8-15c per GB is a lot. A satellite could easily make a cent per second as backbone infrastructure, a nice $300000 per year.I would be cautious about comparing cloud networking egress charges with a la carte network service; they're generally part of relatively complex service offerings that are structured to encourage adoptions and experimentation. In particular,
Anyone know if KSC and the cape are run by separate personnel? Wondering if being able to launch at 39A for commercial launches would help them reach that goal. IIRC there's some FCC filing for the launch early March that would give them the option to use either pad for Starlink.
I wouldn't count on Starship happening in the timeframe of the initial deployment of Starlink.Also one full load on a Starship will catch them up 3 months.But then there need to be plenty of months where they need 3 launches to get near their goal of 35.It's a goal. If they need a month or two extra to hit that goal, I really don't see the problem. If they're short more than a couple of months launches that's indicative of a bigger issue along the way.
Agreed. They have to plan on F9 carrying the load. SS/SH could be 2021 or 2024. Won’t know until it’s ready, because who has ever built a 2 stage fully reuseable super heavy vehicle?
I recall Elon saying or tweeting that the first orbital flight would be SL sats.I wouldn't count on Starship happening in the timeframe of the initial deployment of Starlink.Also one full load on a Starship will catch them up 3 months.But then there need to be plenty of months where they need 3 launches to get near their goal of 35.It's a goal. If they need a month or two extra to hit that goal, I really don't see the problem. If they're short more than a couple of months launches that's indicative of a bigger issue along the way.
Agreed. They have to plan on F9 carrying the load. SS/SH could be 2021 or 2024. Won’t know until it’s ready, because who has ever built a 2 stage fully reuseable super heavy vehicle?
They’ve got an incredible tempo going.
If sat manufacturing is outstripping F9 capability I wouldn’t be surprised to see SS taking at least a few SL’s up on on its second orbital launch. And I wouldn’t be overly surprised if that’s before the end of this year. Still, like you say, they can’t bet the farm on it.
Phil
What’s the role of Geosynchronous Satellites in an era of Starlink and near orbit internet?
Boca Chica is their worst launch site for Starlink launches (a 27 degree inclination change is required, and that would all probably have to be after Starship separates from the booster), so I wonder if they'd want to be launching Starship from Cape Canaveral when they start using it for Starlink?Any specific numbers? As in how much, if any payload a 120 ton ship with best guess engine numbers and fuel cap could send on that dogleg?
Boca Chica is their worst launch site for Starlink launches (a 27 degree inclination change is required, and that would all probably have to be after Starship separates from the booster), so I wonder if they'd want to be launching Starship from Cape Canaveral when they start using it for Starlink?
Today. On demand will be more in demand tomorrow.What’s the role of Geosynchronous Satellites in an era of Starlink and near orbit internet?
for TV Broadcast the Geosynchronous Satellites are best solution...
Today. On demand will be more in demand tomorrow.What’s the role of Geosynchronous Satellites in an era of Starlink and near orbit internet?
for TV Broadcast the Geosynchronous Satellites are best solution...
Boca Chica is their worst launch site for Starlink launches ..
Are you sure they were SH and SS or just SS? I have only seen SS ocean launch platform renderings.Boca Chica is their worst launch site for Starlink launches ..
I know they are just renderings but I've seen animations where they launch SS-SH by a barge.
They are also building now a metal flame trench that could be a prerequisite to launch by the sea.
In the long run less constrains, less range fees and more efficient trajectory could be good. In theory they could place the launch barge so that SH landing site is downrange on ground (not Boca Chica).
I believe SH was part of the original point to point animations though that may have changed. This is irrelevant however, since it does nothing to address the fact that downrange overflight of populated areas prevents launching to Starlink inclinations from anywhere near Boca Chica for the foreseeable future. An ocean launch platform or barge recovery of SH doesn't fix this.Are you sure they were SH and SS or just SS? I have only seen SS ocean launch platform renderings.Boca Chica is their worst launch site for Starlink launches ..
I know they are just renderings but I've seen animations where they launch SS-SH by a barge.
They are also building now a metal flame trench that could be a prerequisite to launch by the sea.
In the long run less constrains, less range fees and more efficient trajectory could be good. In theory they could place the launch barge so that SH landing site is downrange on ground (not Boca Chica).
It would not surprise me if a hardened version of the 3/Y CPU core is being used in the Starlink Sats... ???
Same core with different code is my point...
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-hardware-3-frightens-toyota-vw-model-3-teardown/
Viasat user here, on the "unlimited" tier at 100 GB for about $155.00 a month. And unlimited is in quotes because "after that threshold your traffic may be prioritized below other users" translates to "sharp throttling starting at 100.01 GB."
Starlink needs to beat or meet that for me to sign up, but I'm thinking that won't be too hard...
HughesNet user here. I do not believe it will take much to have all existing satellite internet users to switch to Starlink. I do not have any experience with Viasat but looking at their offerings it is very similar to HN. The day Starlink becomes available to me is the day I make the switch. HN is very costly, with low speeds, low usage limits, and high latency.
It would not surprise me if a hardened version of the 3/Y CPU core is being used in the Starlink Sats... ???
Same core with different code is my point...
What’s the role of Geosynchronous Satellites in an era of Starlink and near orbit internet?
for TV Broadcast the Geosynchronous Satellites are best solution...
See above (or maybe in another starlink thread, I forget). We have a forum user explaining why they are short Viasat already (and the stock hit its recent peak just before the first 60 sats launched, downward since then)
That raises the obvious question ... if a huge portion of the Viasat and HughesNet customer bases are jumping providers ASAP, are these viable companies in the future? Based on their heavy debt loads and junk bond ratings, I suspect we might see a few bankruptcy re-orgs within 2 or 3 years of Starlink offering service in North America.
And does the same game play out in Europe and elsewhere? Eutelsat? SES? Telesat? all of these companies are heavily in debt and lack the resources to launch a competitive LEO constellation.
Starlink threatens many of their markets, except the satellite TV broadcast market. But with so many people switching to steaming services, Starlink might threaten that also.
Starlink doesn't need to take 100% of their market to put a company into bankruptcy. Any company with high fixed costs and heavy debt (many are rated junk debt) could easily find itself in bankruptcy by losing only 20% to 30% of their expected revenue.
I expect eventually some kind of European lawfare against Starlink, OneWeb and the like.Presumably the only legal impact such actions could have would be to prevent these constellations servicing Europe, and would that matter significantly to the economic potential of these systems? I wouldn't think that these kind of constellation are aimed at providing service for dense areas like Europe.
I see more and more articles in European authoritative newspapers against Starlink, OneWeb, and megaconstellations in general echoing the complaints of the astronomers and the usual line by Arianespace that space is not far west.
I expect eventually some kind of European lawfare against Starlink, OneWeb and the like.
We don't know for sure - little is known about the project at all, as Thomas Eversberg of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) criticizes: "We know little about the satellites and we know little about what Elon Musk is up to." Eversberg observes near-earth objects in space. His verdict on Elon Musk's "Starlink" project is clear: "For us, this is future space junk."
Example in Europe
Gefährlicher Minisatelliten-Trend "Für uns ist das zukünftiger Weltraumschrott" (https://www.t-online.de/digital/id_87356328/experte-zu-starlink-fuer-uns-ist-das-zukuenftiger-weltraumschrott-.html)QuoteWe don't know for sure - little is known about the project at all, as Thomas Eversberg of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) criticizes: "We know little about the satellites and we know little about what Elon Musk is up to." Eversberg observes near-earth objects in space. His verdict on Elon Musk's "Starlink" project is clear: "For us, this is future space junk."
Example in Europe
Gefährlicher Minisatelliten-Trend "Für uns ist das zukünftiger Weltraumschrott" (https://www.t-online.de/digital/id_87356328/experte-zu-starlink-fuer-uns-ist-das-zukuenftiger-weltraumschrott-.html)QuoteWe don't know for sure - little is known about the project at all, as Thomas Eversberg of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) criticizes: "We know little about the satellites and we know little about what Elon Musk is up to." Eversberg observes near-earth objects in space. His verdict on Elon Musk's "Starlink" project is clear: "For us, this is future space junk."
Dr. Will Roper, the head of U.S. Air Force acquisitions, says the branch will have a “massive” demonstration event on April 8 that will include testing applications of SpaceX’s #Starlink satellites to “a greater degree,” connecting to platforms both in the air and on land.
Michael Sheetz ✓ @thesheetztweetz
The Air Force already tested Starlink satellites by linking them to military aircraft in flight, reporting early favorable results.
Gen. John Raymond has notably visited SpaceX’s Starlink factory in Redmond, WA.
https://t.co/KGM6S8aP10
SpaceX Starlink job posting signals serious interest in a growing multi-billion dollar market
By Eric Ralph Posted on February 25, 2020
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-job-posting-billion-dollar-market/
SpaceX’s February 21st listing explicitly refers to the new position as an opportunity to “[certify] Starlink aeronautical terminals [for] commercial and business jet aircraft…[and] play a critical role in deploying an industry-changing In-Flight Communications (IFC) service”
We brought up the Starlink production line before we actually had the design finalized.
Then we discover there are all these things in the design that are very difficult to make. Therefore, we must change the design.
The satellite ended up having the same capability, it was just easy to make and launch.
The satellites are being produced at a rate now faster than we can launch them.
The cost of the satellite has dropped below the cost of transporting it to orbit, even when taking a Falcon 9 in its most reused configuration.
And the cost of that satellite will keep coming down as we ramp up rates and make design improvements.
So we really need Starship to carry Starlink in order to get the total cost to orbit to be much better than it is today.
Does Starlink satellites get computer chips or components from China or South Korea? And will Corona virus affect production since all the deaths reported with Corona virus are in Washington state?
Does Starlink satellites get computer chips or components from China or South Korea? And will Corona virus affect production since all the deaths reported with Corona virus are in Washington state?
Does Starlink satellites get computer chips or components from China or South Korea? And will Corona virus affect production since all the deaths reported with Corona virus are in Washington state?Corona virus infects living tissue, the Starlink chips cannot get infected. Sneeze. Der was sum defs in china too not just Washinton state!. Ah. A definitive determination, of the affect on production cannot be made without access to records of the future.
The last couple posts seem to have a bit of confusion about ITAR. ITAR is concerned with exports not imports. If a schematic is sent overseas to be manufactured there, that is an export (and still possible with a license or if the design does not fall under export controls, for example if it doesn't reveal any "special" technology.) Any purchase of COTS components by definition is stuff already available so designs would not need to be exported, so there is no possible ITAR conflict.
Thanks for the clarification! Would a phased array transceiver IC design for a satellite necessarily be ITAR-restricted? Given the cost targets of Starlink, I'm pretty certain they need to design their own SoCs that may have gone into their satellites (and almost certainly in ground stations), and they may have needed to export their design to another country to have it manufactured.The answer used to be easy: if it ever touched a spacecraft it would be export controlled.
Incorporating a linear power amplifier configuration having a capability to support multiple signals simultaneously at an output power of 1 kW or more in the frequency range of 1.5 MHz or more but less than 30 MHz, or 250 W or more in the frequency range of 30 MHz or more but not exceeding 87.5 MHz, over an “instantaneous bandwidth” of one octave or more and with an output harmonic and distortion content of better than -80 dB;
I think SpaceX is treating the Department of Defense as the priority customer for the initial constellation, which will net them big chunks of cash a lot sooner than the consumer facing services.
I think SpaceX is treating the Department of Defense as the priority customer for the initial constellation, which will net them big chunks of cash a lot sooner than the consumer facing services.
I think the Airforce will want laser links for sat interconnect so they have worldwide service with direct link to the US.
Will the Airforce see it as important enough to find ways of speeding its development. As you say if they want laser links, can they find a way to pay that will help the Airforce?I think SpaceX is treating the Department of Defense as the priority customer for the initial constellation, which will net them big chunks of cash a lot sooner than the consumer facing services.
I think the Airforce will want laser links for sat interconnect so they have worldwide service with direct link to the US.
I can safely assume that if there are talented laser specialists capable to complete full design of the laser comm segment quicker than the present group SpaceX has money for them already. (i.e. they need sat hardware+ ground base hardware+ software+data logistics+power requirements mash-up mixed and cooked in something working well enough).Will the Airforce see it as important enough to find ways of speeding its development. As you say if they want laser links, can they find a way to pay that will help the Airforce?I think SpaceX is treating the Department of Defense as the priority customer for the initial constellation, which will net them big chunks of cash a lot sooner than the consumer facing services.
I think the Airforce will want laser links for sat interconnect so they have worldwide service with direct link to the US.
I think SpaceX is treating the Department of Defense as the priority customer for the initial constellation, which will net them big chunks of cash a lot sooner than the consumer facing services.
I think the Airforce will want laser links for sat interconnect so they have worldwide service with direct link to the US.
Maybe a little of topic, but did anybody hear about the ground stations?
Current iteration has no satellite to satellite communication. So to provide service, they will need a grid of ground stations, with good peering to the internet.
I currently have no indication that the down link to the ground can use the same kind of phased antenna they use to service the clients, so they would need around 4 steerable dishes per ground station, peering agreements, fiber to the next internet node ...
Maybe I am a little pessimistic here, but last time I did try to set up something more less low key, we where talking 2 years.
Have we any implication they already started?
The results from this work show that the SpaceX Darksat has a noticeable reduction in reflective solar light in the Sloan g’ passband, 55 % ± 4.8 %. Making Darksat invisible to the naked eye, even under optimal conditions. However, this reduction does not come close to the required amount needed to mitigate the effects that low orbital mega-constellation LEO communication satellites will have on ultra-wide imaging exposures from large telescopes, such as, the National Science Foundation’s Vera C. Rubin Observatory, formerly known as LSST. To help ameliorate the impacts from ghosting in the ultra-wide imaging exposures, would require a reduction to ≈7 % of the reflective brightness of the standard STARLINK LEO communication satellites, approximately down to 8th magnitude (see LSST Statement). However, Darksat is the first response by SpaceX towards the impacts of mega-constellations LEO communication satellites on both amateur and professional astronomy.
This would explain why they're so bright during orbit raising activities, that's a lot of solar panel area to be illuminated and visible from the ground.QuoteMy best close-up image of a Starlink-2 satellite, this frame from an imaging session on March 24 shows clearly the (flat) satellite bus and solar panel.
Interesting little interview with Matt Desch regarding Starlink:Matt Desch about Elon rolling out Starlink: "I think he is going slowly and carefully"
https://twitter.com/cheddar/status/1237811815175852033
Matt Desch really impressed me during the 8 Iridium launches.I don't think they were really ever a credible competitor, and their failure to raise more money at this relatively early stage is evidence of that.
I think the slow and careful he is referring too is when Starlink rolled back it's initial plan and coverage to just the US.
Get the revenue stream turned on and then get more birds up and more licenses in different countries.
Note: It's a shame about Oneweb filing bankruptcy. It would be good to have more competition.
I don't think they were really ever a credible competitor, and their failure to raise more money at this relatively early stage is evidence of that.
Note: It's a shame about Oneweb filing bankruptcy. It would be good to have more competition.
I think they were only a sort of harassing player that adds friction but no value - not the kind of peer competition you want.
At least this way SL will pick up some additional early customers, and since Musk always acts as if there's a competitor breathing down his neck, I don't see much harm in OneWeb's demise.
Sure, but Bezos, once he gets NG going, might actually be able to be a real competitor.I don't think they were really ever a credible competitor, and their failure to raise more money at this relatively early stage is evidence of that.
Note: It's a shame about Oneweb filing bankruptcy. It would be good to have more competition.
I think they were only a sort of harassing player that adds friction but no value - not the kind of peer competition you want.
At least this way SL will pick up some additional early customers, and since Musk always acts as if there's a competitor breathing down his neck, I don't see much harm in OneWeb's demise.
Seems like OneWeb might present a shortcut for Bezos in terms of licensing if not technology - speaking of harassment competitors.
Needless to say, Starlink is a gigantic overhang to the industry and until what happens to that project is clear, people maybe apprehensive about doing any deals.
Tom Choi gave an interesting interview to Via Satellite about OneWeb's bankruptcy, in which he also criticized Starlink. He said LEO broadband was a bad idea that keeps harming the satellite industry. He focused specifically on the user terminal cost.
User terminals seem to me to be a more tractable problem for Musk, Inc. Musk is starting to manufacture in a market that is only about one order of magnitude greater than his past experience.
That said, Choi is an interesting character with interesting views, so it was an enjoyable read.Quote from: Tom ChoiNeedless to say, Starlink is a gigantic overhang to the industry and until what happens to that project is clear, people maybe apprehensive about doing any deals.
https://www.satellitetoday.com/business/2020/03/31/tom-choi-onewebs-failure-will-dent-newspace-investment/
Today you can build affordable GEO (High Throughput Satellites) HTS at one-tenth the capacity cost vs. LEO broadband. Just what problem are they solving?
The first company that has a sub-$100 terminal, that doesn’t require commercial power, works all the time and can charge 10 cents per gigabyte will connect the 3.5 billion people. Until your technology does that please do not start and tell the world you are smarter than us.
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue.What is the actual bandwidth on Lynk? I thought the problem with 4G/5G directly to space is that the bandwidth is barely enough for text messages. That's just not the business that Starlink wants to be in -- they want to provide internet.
QuoteThe first company that has a sub-$100 terminal, that doesn’t require commercial power, works all the time and can charge 10 cents per gigabyte will connect the 3.5 billion people. Until your technology does that please do not start and tell the world you are smarter than us.
Reminds me of this recent conversation (paraphrased):
Zubrin: To make this much fuel, you'd need acres of solar panels.
Musk: Then that's what we'll do.
QuoteThe first company that has a sub-$100 terminal, that doesn’t require commercial power, works all the time and can charge 10 cents per gigabyte will connect the 3.5 billion people. Until your technology does that please do not start and tell the world you are smarter than us.
Reminds me of this recent conversation (paraphrased):
Zubrin: To make this much fuel, you'd need acres of solar panels.
Musk: Then that's what we'll do.
To be fair the solution to the "acres of solar panels" problem is obvious because of the designed cargo capability of Starship, it is not obvious Starlink design would result in sub-$100 terminals. The good news is Starlink doesn't need sub-$100 terminal or 10 cents per gigabyte or reaching 3.5 billion people to be profitable.
Also does HTS GEO satellites actually have sub-$100 terminal or 10 cents per gigabyte? I don't think that's the case.
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue.What is the actual bandwidth on Lynk? I thought the problem with 4G/5G directly to space is that the bandwidth is barely enough for text messages. That's just not the business that Starlink wants to be in -- they want to provide internet.
QuoteThe first company that has a sub-$100 terminal, that doesn’t require commercial power, works all the time and can charge 10 cents per gigabyte will connect the 3.5 billion people. Until your technology does that please do not start and tell the world you are smarter than us.
Reminds me of this recent conversation (paraphrased):
Zubrin: To make this much fuel, you'd need acres of solar panels.
Musk: Then that's what we'll do.
To be fair the solution to the "acres of solar panels" problem is obvious because of the designed cargo capability of Starship, it is not obvious Starlink design would result in sub-$100 terminals. The good news is Starlink doesn't need sub-$100 terminal or 10 cents per gigabyte or reaching 3.5 billion people to be profitable.
Also does HTS GEO satellites actually have sub-$100 terminal or 10 cents per gigabyte? I don't think that's the case.
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).
In the end, telephony is data. CALEA issues are the responsibility of the service provider; Skype and whoever, not the backbone.
Telephone service is relatively simple to add. Place a phone system to internet bridge at each downlink, and add an internet phone, and UPS to the user satellite terminal package. The UPS is to maintain service during a power outage.The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).
In the end, telephony is data. CALEA issues are the responsibility of the service provider; Skype and whoever, not the backbone.
SpaceX will need to provide telephone service if they want FCC rural broadband subsidy.
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).
In the end, telephony is data. CALEA issues are the responsibility of the service provider; Skype and whoever, not the backbone.
SpaceX will need to provide telephone service if they want FCC rural broadband subsidy.
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).
In the end, telephony is data. CALEA issues are the responsibility of the service provider; Skype and whoever, not the backbone.
SpaceX will need to provide telephone service if they want FCC rural broadband subsidy.
I can hear Elon saying 'Hold my beer'.
Being reliable, providing 911 service shouldn't be breaking new ground.
Edit: I'm more interested in seeing when they finish the investigation from the last launches engine failure and get back to putting up more birds. I'm really looking forward to seeing customers sign up and see the speedtest.net results.
Edit: I'm more interested in seeing when they finish the investigation from the last launches engine failure and get back to putting up more birds. I'm really looking forward to seeing customers sign up and see the speedtest.net results.
On cost of the user satellite terminal. If it wasn't for the servo aiming system, I'd have said it was easy to keep the manufacturing cost under $100. Standard automated PCB assembly equipment can make the antenna array and driver hardware. After that is stick it into the case, test, and box it. I've commented some on what I think it takes to make it in the hardware thread. The servo aiming system likely adds over $50 to the manufacturing cost.
Issues I see is snow and ice buildup, as well as bird nests.
42. All Rural Digital Opportunity Fund support recipients, like all other high-cost ETCs, will be required to offer standalone voice service and offer voice and broadband services at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates offered in urban areas.122 Some commenters urge the Commission to eliminate the standalone voice requirement. WISPA argues that RDOF recipients should not be required to offer standalone voice service, because, consumers increasingly are subscribing to voice as a component of their broadband connections.123 SpaceX claims the standalone voice requirement is no longer useful for nearly all consumers because Americans no longer choose to buy standalone voice, and the requirement adds costs to develop and make available voice equipment and provide voice-specific customer support.124 GeoLinks urges the Commission to simply require that auction winners offer a voice service option, which can be available via a service bundle.125 The National Association of Counties states that “unfortunately, the unintended consequence of this requirement would prevent willing and able entities from providing high-speed broadband internet services solely because they do not provide voice services in addition to broadband.”126
43. Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, gives the Commission the authority to support telecommunications services, which the Commission has defined as “voice telephony service.”127 The Commission made clear when it adopted the standalone voice requirement as a condition of receiving Connect America Fund support in 2011 that the definition of the supported service, voice telephony service, is technologically neutral, allowing ETCs to provision voice service over many platforms.128 When it adopted the broadband reasonable rate comparability requirement in 2014, the Commission explained that “high-cost recipients are permitted to offer a variety of broadband service offerings as long as they offer at least one standalone voice service plan and one service plan that provides broadband that meets our requirements.”129 In 2018, the Commission dismissed requests to eliminate the standalone voice requirement.130 The Commission reasoned that auction funding recipients, unlike funding recipients of other USF mechanisms, “may be the only ETC offering voice in some areas and not all consumers may want to subscribe to broadband service.”131 The record does not show that these facts have changed, and voice telephony is still the supported service. Therefore, we require all ETCs receiving Rural Digital Opportunity Fund support to provide standalone voice service meeting the reasonable comparability requirements in the areas in which they receive support.
122 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17693-94, 17708, paras. 80, 84, 113; December 2014 Connect
America Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 15686-87, paras. 120-23; WCB Reminds Connect America Fund Phase II Auction
Participants of the Process for Obtaining a Federal Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, 33
FCC Rcd 6696, 6697-99; see also 47 CFR § 54.313(a)(2), (3); 2020 Urban Rate Survey Public Notice.
123 WISPA Comments at 10-11. WISPA claims that, so long as voice is offered along with broadband service and
the voice service meets the functional “voice-grade” requirements of section 54.101, the statutory obligation will
have been satisfied.
124 SpaceX Comments at 4.
125 GeoLinks Comments at 8; see also Pacific Dataport Comments at 5; ADTRAN Reply Comments at 17.
126 National Association of Counties Comments at 2 (also arguing non-ETCs should be allowed to participate if only
option for connecting a community).
127 47 U.S.C. § 254(c)(1); 47 CFR § 54.101.
128 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17692, paras. 77-78.
129 December 2014 Connect America Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 156887, para. 120 (footnote omitted).
130 Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 1387, para. 20.
131 Id.; but see SpaceX Comments at 5 (arguing the Commission has deemphasized voice services in other types of
universal service support).
(ETC)= eligible telecommunications carrier
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).
In the end, telephony is data. CALEA issues are the responsibility of the service provider; Skype and whoever, not the backbone.
SpaceX will need to provide telephone service if they want FCC rural broadband subsidy.
I have an arrangement with an ISP to have a data pipe into my home. They provide no service other than the data pipe. I am free to arrange any services I wish through that pipe, including telephony.
What would probably happen is SL service will come with one or more third party add on that the end user is free to accept or reject. Sort of like how so many software packages include a stub to set up MacAfee.
SL might bundle third party telephony but like the SX model is transport, not content (let’s ignore SL as content), SL will provide the pipe, not fill it.
This should satisfy any FCC requirements. They’re interested in getting telephony out there, not the nuts and bolts of the business model.
Phil
Edit: I just saw Gongora’s post. If I read it correctly it allows this model - I think.
$55/month? I see no problem here, then.
I have an arrangement with an ISP to have a data pipe into my home. They provide no service other than the data pipe. I am free to arrange any services I wish through that pipe, including telephony.
What would probably happen is SL service will come with one or more third party add on that the end user is free to accept or reject. Sort of like how so many software packages include a stub to set up MacAfee.
SL might bundle third party telephony but like the SX model is transport, not content (let’s ignore SL as content), SL will provide the pipe, not fill it.
This should satisfy any FCC requirements. They’re interested in getting telephony out there, not the nuts and bolts of the business model.
Phil
Edit: I just saw Gongora’s post. If I read it correctly it allows this model - I think.
No, standalone voice means customers must be able to buy voice only without data. Also the cost of a voice plan with a user terminal must be reasonably comparable to a standalone voice plan with equipment charges in urban areas. To be fair the FCC defines reasonably comparable (https://www.fcc.gov/economics-analytics/industry-analysis-division/urban-rate-survey-data-resources) as up to two standard deviations (2 x $9.98) above the urban average ($34.81) so a standalone voice plan with a user terminal can cost up to $54.76 a month. That's pretty high.
On cost of the user satellite terminal. If it wasn't for the servo aiming system, I'd have said it was easy to keep the manufacturing cost under $100. Standard automated PCB assembly equipment can make the antenna array and driver hardware. After that is stick it into the case, test, and box it. I've commented some on what I think it takes to make it in the hardware thread. The servo aiming system likely adds over $50 to the manufacturing cost.
Issues I see is snow and ice buildup, as well as bird nests.
But how much for the silicon? That is not always inexpensive, even at this quantity order-of-magnitude.
My new blog post on the FCC's potential $16B SpaceX RDOF problem http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2020/04/05/spacex-and-the-fccs-16b-problem/
I found this an interesting, and critical, read on SpaceX’s Starlink claims as part of its bid for FCC funding:
https://twitter.com/m_ladovaz/status/1246887524011835394QuoteMy new blog post on the FCC's potential $16B SpaceX RDOF problem http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2020/04/05/spacex-and-the-fccs-16b-problem/
I don’t have the background to know whose claims are more accurate.
That entire post is garbage.Care to explain why, in detail?
That entire post is garbage.Care to explain why, in detail?
He says it's "truly outrageous" that SpaceX would be allowed to bid before they bring their network into service. Well, none of the other bidders are required to have their network in service before bidding either, and he doesn't seem to be complaining about that.As far as I can tell, most or all of the other RDOF competitors will be using terrestrial network buildouts, which is a well-established technology that hardly needs feasibility demonstration. GEO services like Viasat are likely to be at a severe disadvantage and may not even end up bidding depending on how the latency rules shake out. https://www.telecompetitor.com/fcc-proposes-bidding-procedures-for-october-rdof-auction/
Is the post a little hyperbolic? Sure. Is it utterly without merit ("garbage") based on what we know and don't know about Starlink? I think that's an overstatement.
Is the post a little hyperbolic? Sure.
I don't think the federal government subsidizing Starlink's basic development and deployment was what the intent of RDOF was. If Starlink was the panacea some claim, it would simply win in the marketplace, not have to slurp from the government trough.
If SpaceX can provide the service then why shouldn't they participate in the program?Where should the government draw the line between subsidizing basic development (and taking a risk it won't pan out) and simply expanding capacity of an established operational service? I'm not sure, and I don't know what RDOF's intent was or the history of similar state and federal broadband subsidy programs, but I'd have thought that basic development was not what they had in mind. As one example, while there was some new distribution technology developed as part of the original 1936 REA ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act ) it's not like basic electrical standards had to be invented from scratch.
Did SpaceX meet all of the initial goals for the Starlink design in the time they initially said they would? Of course not. Elon made a decision to cut some features from the initial design to speed up deployment. Service isn't going to start right after the sixth launch. Neither of those means Starlink is a work of fantasy that won't ever go into service with decent performance. I get tired of some of the over-optimism from SpaceX amazing peoples too, but you're going just as far in the opposite direction.
I can confirm that gongora is an equal opportunity $***-giver and knows more about this probably even than Tim due to keeping track of the public details extremely carefully.
That entire post is garbage.Care to explain why, in detail?
He keeps throwing around $16B like that's a number SpaceX would get, when he knows very well that no company will get anywhere near that amount.
He basically says SpaceX is lying about the ability to provide low latency service. He then compares it to Iridium, which routes traffic over crosslinks to get to one of a small number of ground stations, resulting in higher latency. SpaceX has already filed for more ground stations in the U.S. than Iridium uses globally. The lack of crosslinks on the current SpaceX satellites will actually enforce lower latency.
He keeps saying the system is untested. From a deployed consumer user terminal perspective that may be true, but SpaceX has obviously been testing the network (as has DoD) and know what kind of performance they're getting.
He says the terminals will need mechanical steering, which is just not true. (Mechanical steering means continually following the satellites as they move across the sky, not a one-time setup routine to point it in a good direction.)
He says features such as crosslinks are "discarded", when in some cases, such as crosslinks, they are merely delayed. I don't really doubt his claims that the satellites don't currently reallocate capacity on the fly, but that would just reduce the overall throughput (number of people served per satellite), not stop the constellation from working.
He thinks its a bad thing that SpaceX is writing their own software, and should be relying on a subcontractor like Hughes or Viasat. That's nonsense. It may take SpaceX longer than intended to implement all of the intended features, but there's no reason they can't produce their own software.
He says it's "truly outrageous" that SpaceX would be allowed to bid before they bring their network into service. Well, none of the other bidders are required to have their network in service before bidding either, and he doesn't seem to be complaining about that.
This part is a real gem: "So SpaceX could then take the FCC’s money, never provide service to a single customer that the money was meant to help, and reallocate its capacity to serve other users like the DoD anywhere within the country or even the rest of the world." The auction has rules about actually providing service. If they aren't providing service after three years then they would be kicked out of the program and have to pay back at least some of the money. As the program is for a ten year term a company can't get all of that allocated funding without actually providing service. If he thinks SpaceX can reallocate its capacity from rural America to "the rest of the world" then Mr. Farrrar apparently doesn't have a very good understanding of how LEO constellations work.
He's basically saying, throughout the post, that SpaceX will not be able to get their network performance within the criteria for the auction and will commit fraud if they get funding. It's a garbage post.
He says it's "truly outrageous" that SpaceX would be allowed to bid before they bring their network into service. Well, none of the other bidders are required to have their network in service before bidding either, and he doesn't seem to be complaining about that.As far as I can tell, most or all of the other RDOF competitors will be using terrestrial network buildouts, which is a well-established technology that hardly needs feasibility demonstration. GEO services like Viasat are likely to be at a severe disadvantage and may not even end up bidding depending on how the latency rules shake out. https://www.telecompetitor.com/fcc-proposes-bidding-procedures-for-october-rdof-auction/ (https://www.telecompetitor.com/fcc-proposes-bidding-procedures-for-october-rdof-auction/)
Is the post a little hyperbolic? Sure. Is it utterly without merit ("garbage") based on what we know and don't know about Starlink? I think that's an overstatement. I don't think the federal government subsidizing Starlink's basic development and deployment was what the intent of RDOF was. If Starlink was the panacea some claim, it would simply win in the marketplace, not have to slurp from the government trough.
I'm not expecting to get a lot of traction on this site with this view, but it's been hard for me to separate the reality from the hype for Starlink.
Time to get back on topic.How is rationally discussing the shortcomings of an article about Starlink off-topic? I learned a lot about Starlink in this exchange.
Isn't the biggest thing for phone service hooking into the 911 system?
Isn't the biggest thing for phone service hooking into the 911 system?
The trickier bit with the phone service over satellite could be dealing with hundreds of 911 jurisdictions from every gateway. Cable/local telco/wireless all have local equipment.
I also noticed SpaceX's filing shows beginning of service in US is end of 2020,
so what is the delay? Gateways? Terminals? Software?
I wonder if it's possible for them to start service in a limited region (for example Boca Chica) first?
I might be about ten years behind things here. Is the only thing really needed for IP phone service just the voice call getting a higher COS, allowing just about any voice system to plug into the data pipe and make calls? I seem to remember some shenanigans by certain ISPs in not allowing competing phone systems the class of service they needed to work right.
Isn't the biggest thing for phone service hooking into the 911 system?
If Starlink was the panacea some claim, it would simply win in the marketplace, not have to slurp from the government trough.
And date of start of service - it`s really now goes to end of year 2020??
And date of start of service - it`s really now goes to end of year 2020??
"in 2020" and "by the end of 2020" mean the same thing. There is no change here, despite what some garbage posters are claiming. Q4 2020 has always been the target for Starlink, as far as I can tell. If you have any evidence that SpaceX actually planned an earlier service date, please link it.
Q4 2020 has always been the target for Starlink, as far as I can tell. If you have any evidence that SpaceX actually planned an earlier service date, please link it.
Does Skype do 911?In theory, sort of, maybe? https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/skypeforbusiness/certification/services-e911
Q4 2020 has always been the target for Starlink, as far as I can tell. If you have any evidence that SpaceX actually planned an earlier service date, please link it.
//SpaceX is confident it can start offering broadband service in the United States via its Starlink constellation in mid-2020, the company’s president and chief operating officer Gwynne Shotwell said Oct. 22, 2019.
“We’ll continue to upgrade the network until mid to late next year,” said Shotwell.
//https://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-to-start-offering-starlink-broadband-services-in-2020/
I just googled “911 maps”.But many, many companies have solved this problem. It's not really worth discussing, IMHO, compared to the other, harder issues here.
It looks like there is no overall mapping scheme or I missed it. A first take is that it’s done at a state/county/city level with no overall standardized gis system.
It looks harder than I thought.
Phil
I also noticed SpaceX's filing shows beginning of service in US is end of 2020, I don't know if this is a change from previous filings, but it certainly doesn't help with the narrative. I think Elon mentioned last year that they needed 6(?) launches to start minimal service in the US, they should be able to do that soon, so what is the delay? Gateways? Terminals? Software?
I wonder if it's possible for them to start service in a limited region (for example Boca Chica) first? Something like a beta test, it would help a lot with their case in front of FCC.
But many, many companies have solved [E911]. It's not really worth discussing, IMHO...Perhaps not, but it's a nice type example of how things turn out to be harder in practice than they might seem to a casual observer.
A Femtocell in your house would supply the location of the Femtocell, not the handset. It's already in the system, because the first thing a Femto cell does when you turn it on is supply it's own GPS coordinates so the phone company can be sure you're in their allowed coverage area.But many, many companies have solved [E911]. It's not really worth discussing, IMHO...Perhaps not, but it's a nice type example of how things turn out to be harder in practice than they might seem to a casual observer.
For example, I have a femtocell in my house. It knows exactly where it is because it has a GPS receiver, but the way location services work on my phone is a confusing hodgepodge of poorly-working hacks. For months my cell phone would be convinced that I instantly traveled about 100 miles away from my house in the middle of the night. Who knows why?
BTW, as a more relevant example, if I dial 911 on an Iridium phone, "it is automatically routed to Iridium’s selected 911 emergency call center provider, Intrado. After determining the nature of the emergency, Intrado will route the call to the nearest Public Safety Answering Point." One wonders how that solution would scale for a larger network.
I wouldn't be surprised if the main purpose of the GPS receiver isn't about its location, but about the current time and clock signal (a GPS receiver with 10kHz output combined with a PLL can be highly accurate). As I understand cellular networks, they are heavily dependent on time-division multiplexing.A Femtocell in your house would supply the location of the Femtocell, not the handset. It's already in the system, because the first thing a Femto cell does when you turn it on is supply it's own GPS coordinates so the phone company can be sure you're in their allowed coverage area.But many, many companies have solved [E911]. It's not really worth discussing, IMHO...Perhaps not, but it's a nice type example of how things turn out to be harder in practice than they might seem to a casual observer.
For example, I have a femtocell in my house. It knows exactly where it is because it has a GPS receiver, but the way location services work on my phone is a confusing hodgepodge of poorly-working hacks. For months my cell phone would be convinced that I instantly traveled about 100 miles away from my house in the middle of the night. Who knows why?
BTW, as a more relevant example, if I dial 911 on an Iridium phone, "it is automatically routed to Iridium’s selected 911 emergency call center provider, Intrado. After determining the nature of the emergency, Intrado will route the call to the nearest Public Safety Answering Point." One wonders how that solution would scale for a larger network.
Regarding the FCC subsidy, it does look like that Starlink is not offering service and haven't demonstrated high speed/low latency is a very common talking point among its competitors. If you read the filings, pretty much every filing from its competitors mentioned something like this, so it's not just Tim Farrar, he's just parroting what terrestrial fiber companies are saying.
I also noticed SpaceX's filing shows beginning of service in US is end of 2020, I don't know if this is a change from previous filings, but it certainly doesn't help with the narrative. I think Elon mentioned last year that they needed 6(?) launches to start minimal service in the US, they should be able to do that soon, so what is the delay? Gateways? Terminals? Software?
I wonder if it's possible for them to start service in a limited region (for example Boca Chica) first? Something like a beta test, it would help a lot with their case in front of FCC.
They did not yet reach 6 launches and orbit raising seems to take many weeks or months. And 6-8 was for coverage of northern latitudes. Boca Chica is at the southern tip of Texas so it's harder to cover than (for example) Washington State.
Of all the criticisms of Starlink being a few months late is among the weakest: ground-based providers would have to spend a lot of time on construction anyway.
Revealing the test results would go a long way to shut the critics up.
Revealing the test results would go a long way to shut the critics up.
I don't think it would do any such thing. You're going to shut Tim up? Ha!
Revealing the test results would go a long way to shut the critics up.
I don't think it would do any such thing. You're going to shut Tim up? Ha!
And SpaceX has been as open as they need to be.
The whole argument is weak.I also noticed SpaceX's filing shows beginning of service in US is end of 2020, I don't know if this is a change from previous filings, but it certainly doesn't help with the narrative. I think Elon mentioned last year that they needed 6(?) launches to start minimal service in the US, they should be able to do that soon, so what is the delay? Gateways? Terminals? Software?
I wonder if it's possible for them to start service in a limited region (for example Boca Chica) first? Something like a beta test, it would help a lot with their case in front of FCC.
They did not yet reach 6 launches and orbit raising seems to take many weeks or months. And 6-8 was for coverage of northern latitudes. Boca Chica is at the southern tip of Texas so it's harder to cover than (for example) Washington State.
Of all the criticisms of Starlink being a few months late is among the weakest: ground-based providers would have to spend a lot of time on construction anyway.
Not Tim. His ramblings are irrelevant. I and su27k are talking about critics in the proceeding (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=19-126&sort=date_disseminated,DESC). The rules of RDOF are not finalized yet. The critics want to convince the FCC to change the rules to disadvantage SpaceX.
I just googled “911 maps”.Government TIGER map data has all the administrative boundaries in it. Which 911 service to route to can be determined using the coordinates of those administrative boundaries. A mapping of administrative areas to 911 service would need to be found. I'd expect it exists, but might not be in a convenient form.
It looks like there is no overall mapping scheme or I missed it. A first take is that it’s done at a state/county/city level with no overall standardized gis system.
It looks harder than I thought.
Phil
Right. It’s worth noting the critics on FCC filings are often/usually competitors so it’s literally their job to try to find arguments as to why SpaceX’s system is deficient and shouldn’t be qualified. Don’t hold it against the critics, but also don’t think that they’re neutral in any way.Not Tim. His ramblings are irrelevant. I and su27k are talking about critics in the proceeding (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=19-126&sort=date_disseminated,DESC). The rules of RDOF are not finalized yet. The critics want to convince the FCC to change the rules to disadvantage SpaceX.
There is a panoply of layered criticism that does not seem particularly persuasive. The FCC has been seeing SpaceX up close for a few years now and it looks like they perceive Starlink as a potential winner. They have had ample opportunity to knee cap SpaceX, but have declined to do so thus far.
The best and really only thing that SpaceX can do now to show that Starlink is a horse worth betting on is to keep pushing sats uphill. But the critics will still carp. That's their job, after all.
Right. It’s worth noting the critics on FCC filings are often/usually competitors so it’s literally their job to try to find arguments as to why SpaceX’s system is deficient and shouldn’t be qualified. Don’t hold it against the critics, but also don’t think that they’re neutral in any way.Not Tim. His ramblings are irrelevant. I and su27k are talking about critics in the proceeding (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=19-126&sort=date_disseminated,DESC). The rules of RDOF are not finalized yet. The critics want to convince the FCC to change the rules to disadvantage SpaceX.
There is a panoply of layered criticism that does not seem particularly persuasive. The FCC has been seeing SpaceX up close for a few years now and it looks like they perceive Starlink as a potential winner. They have had ample opportunity to knee cap SpaceX, but have declined to do so thus far.
The best and really only thing that SpaceX can do now to show that Starlink is a horse worth betting on is to keep pushing sats uphill. But the critics will still carp. That's their job, after all.
SpaceX believes that it is more effective to leverage advanced technology and smart private sector infrastructure investment to reach America’s unserved and underserved population, rather than seek Government subsidization for this effort,” SpaceX’s Vice President of Satellite Government Affairs, Patricia Cooper, wrote in a May 8 letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.
Cooper thanked the FCC for revising the Connect America auction rules, but said systems like Starlink won’t need government funding to connect rural and other remote areas.
If they bid for RDOF, presumably something changed their minds.
I just googled “911 maps”.Government TIGER map data has all the administrative boundaries in it. Which 911 service to route to can be determined using the coordinates of those administrative boundaries. A mapping of administrative areas to 911 service would need to be found. I'd expect it exists, but might not be in a convenient form.
It looks like there is no overall mapping scheme or I missed it. A first take is that it’s done at a state/county/city level with no overall standardized gis system.
It looks harder than I thought.
Phil
With regard to Starlink and RDOF, I'll remind everyone that back in 2018 SpaceX convinced the FCC to not lump them in with GEO satellites due to lower latency, but after doing so, decided they weren't going to bid for Connect America anyway. From https://spacenews.com/spacex-wont-seek-u-s-rural-broadband-subsidies-for-starlink-constellation/ (https://spacenews.com/spacex-wont-seek-u-s-rural-broadband-subsidies-for-starlink-constellation/)QuoteSpaceX believes that it is more effective to leverage advanced technology and smart private sector infrastructure investment to reach America’s unserved and underserved population, rather than seek Government subsidization for this effort,” SpaceX’s Vice President of Satellite Government Affairs, Patricia Cooper, wrote in a May 8 letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.
Cooper thanked the FCC for revising the Connect America auction rules, but said systems like Starlink won’t need government funding to connect rural and other remote areas.
If they bid for RDOF, presumably something changed their minds.
$$?Presumably. Maybe it's just me, but I would avoid making flat declarative statements about how I'll never need or want government funding in year N and then go after a bunch of government funding in year N+2, since it seems a tad hypocritical. But I admit to not being well-suited for how things are done at the highest levels of business.
With regard to Starlink and RDOF, I'll remind everyone that back in 2018 SpaceX convinced the FCC to not lump them in with GEO satellites due to lower latency, but after doing so, decided they weren't going to bid for Connect America anyway. From https://spacenews.com/spacex-wont-seek-u-s-rural-broadband-subsidies-for-starlink-constellation/ (https://spacenews.com/spacex-wont-seek-u-s-rural-broadband-subsidies-for-starlink-constellation/)QuoteSpaceX believes that it is more effective to leverage advanced technology and smart private sector infrastructure investment to reach America’s unserved and underserved population, rather than seek Government subsidization for this effort,” SpaceX’s Vice President of Satellite Government Affairs, Patricia Cooper, wrote in a May 8 letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.
Cooper thanked the FCC for revising the Connect America auction rules, but said systems like Starlink won’t need government funding to connect rural and other remote areas.
If they bid for RDOF, presumably something changed their minds.
$$?
Yes, and everyone should also remember that SpaceX makes exactly the same kinds of filings against their competitors, usually with arguments just as dubious as the ones being leveled at SpaceX now. It's just the way the game is played.
With regard to Starlink and RDOF, I'll remind everyone that back in 2018 SpaceX convinced the FCC to not lump them in with GEO satellites due to lower latency, but after doing so, decided they weren't going to bid for Connect America anyway. From https://spacenews.com/spacex-wont-seek-u-s-rural-broadband-subsidies-for-starlink-constellation/
If they bid for RDOF, presumably something changed their minds.
$$?Presumably. Maybe it's just me, but I would avoid making flat declarative statements about how I'll never need or want government funding in year N and then go after a bunch of government funding in year N+2, since it seems a tad hypocritical. But I admit to not being well-suited for how things are done at the highest levels of business.
I'm sure this has been covered, but is there a good sense of if the original bunch of sats will be good for anything, since they're missing the Ka band radios needed for gateways?
Location of a proposed Starlink Ground Station at CCAFS next to the SpaceX Fairing Processing Facility [BLDG 70507 at CCAFS, the old Titan era Payload Fairing Cleaning Facility].
By far my best result of the 2020/03/24 imaging session of Starlink-2 satellites. Captured almost exactly overhead. Clear visiblity of bus and detail in solar panel. @SpaceX @SpaceXStarlink @elonmusk @planet4589 @Teslarati @Marco_Langbroek @Sterne_Weltraum @universetoday
Recently filed permitting requests show SpaceX wants to build a Starlink ground station near its fairing processing facility at the Cape. Not groundbreaking news, but amid the drove of usual construction permits, this one stands out.
New filing
https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-MOD-20200417-00037QuoteSpace Exploration Holdings, LLC seeks to modify its Ku/Ka-band NGSO license to relocate satellites previously authorized to operate at altitudes from 1,110 km to 1,325 km down to altitudes ranging from 540 km to 570 km, and to make related changes.
Pretty much as expected.
Has there been anything about the rest of the world? Will they probably stick to the U.S./Canada until the laser links come on line, or are they planning ground stations outside North America? (This from the person who complains about people too lazy to read the whole thread)The change to the inclinations will as they say in the "Narrative Application" improve their coverage and latency in Alaska, for government in polar regions, and around the world.
The gateway map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1H1x8jZs8vfjy60TvKgpbYs_grargieVw&ll=30.479815690358823%2C-70.95175456250001&z=3
shows most of Mexico covered, and southern Canada as well. Whilst covering Mexico may be "incidental" due to Gateways in BC etc, covering Canada is "surely" imo intentional as Gateways are placed close to the Canadian Border. Elon is a Canadian Citizen, lived there, and has family links there. There must imo be an intention to roll out the service to Canada with or soon after the US.
Has there been anything about the rest of the world? Will they probably stick to the U.S./Canada until the laser links come on line, or are they planning ground stations outside North America? (This from the person who complains about people too lazy to read the whole thread)Actually, I realize that's kind of a dumb question. If they want to keep latency low, they'll still need ground stations all over the place. Laser links don't help much if Germany has to talk to Austria via New York.
Has there been anything about the rest of the world? Will they probably stick to the U.S./Canada until the laser links come on line, or are they planning ground stations outside North America? (This from the person who complains about people too lazy to read the whole thread)Actually, I realize that's kind of a dumb question. If they want to keep latency low, they'll still need ground stations all over the place. Laser links don't help much if Germany has to talk to Austria via New York.
I've been into a Cisco or two, but routing through thousands of points zipping all over the planet at 15,000 mph is going to be interesting. Maybe more challenging that building the hardware.
Is there any possibility they're going to do user to user without going through a gateway once the intersat links are up?
Has there been anything about the rest of the world? Will they probably stick to the U.S./Canada until the laser links come on line, or are they planning ground stations outside North America? (This from the person who complains about people too lazy to read the whole thread)Actually, I realize that's kind of a dumb question. If they want to keep latency low, they'll still need ground stations all over the place. Laser links don't help much if Germany has to talk to Austria via New York.
I've been into a Cisco or two, but routing through thousands of points zipping all over the planet at 15,000 mph is going to be interesting. Maybe more challenging that building the hardware.
Is there any possibility they're going to do user to user without going through a gateway once the intersat links are up?
As you say the interesting problem is the routeing, not the only interesting one of course.
It's been discussed elsewhere the shortest routes may be ISL' s or ground bounces, I can see the military would like the user to user capability.
Particularly interesting is elevation angles down to 25 degrees (which SpaceX admitted would need mechanically steered user terminals). Also no mention whatsoever of crosslinks now being part of the implementation plan...
https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1251373364582612992
He's making a lot of assumptions that in my opinion are flawed and he quite clearly has a bias against SpaceX, so I would take his comments just as opinion and not as news.
There is no reason what so every to believe that the user terminals will be mechanically steered during operation.
Actually, it doesn't make any sense what so ever to have a mechanically steered phased array antenna other than giving it a bias for latitudes > 53° to extend coverage as fare as possible.
My take on this is that Elon/Gwynne is waiting for military funding to develop & deploy a military requirements constellation with laser inter-satelite communication. Could even be already development funded with black budget money.
I thought that the inter-sat laset links were a technical problem.
He's making a lot of assumptions that in my opinion are flawed and he quite clearly has a bias against SpaceX, so I would take his comments just as opinion and not as news.
There is no reason what so every to believe that the user terminals will be mechanically steered during operation.
Actually, it doesn't make any sense what so ever to have a mechanically steered phased array antenna other than giving it a bias for latitudes > 53° to extend coverage as fare as possible.
Are the ISL laser links even regulated by the FCC? Firing light beams between satellites wouldn't generate any meaningful interference of any kind. Even if the ISLs are not going live until later revisions of Starlink, it's not as though that in and of itself makes Starlink unsuited for satellite internet access in general. You may not get coverage over large bodies of water/land without downlinks in range, but SpaceX will be busy onboarding people in rural area or large customers like the US military for quite some time.
My take on this is that Elon/Gwynne is waiting for military funding to develop & deploy a military requirements constellation with laser inter-satelite communication. Could even be already development funded with black budget money.
I don't believe funding is that big an issue. Sure, SpaceX will take advantage of any funding available, but they are committed to progressing as fast as they can and will implement ISC asap. Once ISC in in place I see no reason that there wouldn't be cases for user to user comms without going through a gateway.
After this next launch (6) SpaceX will have a minimum for an operational network with U.S. coverage.
I think Alaska/Canada, 70 deg., with 3 launches will be next.
What will after that?
After reading the "Narrative Application" in the current filing, I suspect there may be more changes in their launch methodology. I assume you are quoting from sources prior to this filing, and the knowledge that these orbits are lowering and changing inclination.After this next launch (6) SpaceX will have a minimum for an operational network with U.S. coverage.
I think Alaska/Canada, 70 deg., with 3 launches will be next.
What will after that?
Six launches was for Northern US. Another six for Southern US. Then the rest of the 1500 sat initial deployment. After that it will be interesting to see which inclination they do next.
After this next launch (6) SpaceX will have a minimum for an operational network with U.S. coverage.
I think Alaska/Canada, 70 deg., with 3 launches will be next.
What will after that?
Hummy I wish I understood your diagram.... And I bet I'm not the only one who doesn't. I would expect only half a circle, as the other half, is the rest of the same orbits!!! Is ist a cross section at the equator? A q. tutorial would be helpful.After this next launch (6) SpaceX will have a minimum for an operational network with U.S. coverage.
I think Alaska/Canada, 70 deg., with 3 launches will be next.
What will after that?
The new modification will take 6-9 months to get approved. I believe L7.1 will target the plane where L6.3 would be if L6 would be deployed evenly. Similarly L8.1 will be deployed ahead of L5.3 at the plane where L5.3 would be if deployed evenly. This way first 18 planes will be ready earlier than L6.3 and L5.3 arrive to the target orbit. Then I think L9, L10, L11, etc. will be deployed in groups of 3 planes 5 degrees apart in all slots between previously deployed planes. Illustration:
Hummy I wish I understood your diagram.... And I bet I'm not the only one who doesn't. I would expect only half a circle, as the other half, is the rest of the same orbits!!! Is ist a cross section at the equator? A q. tutorial would be helpful.After this next launch (6) SpaceX will have a minimum for an operational network with U.S. coverage.
I think Alaska/Canada, 70 deg., with 3 launches will be next.
What will after that?
The new modification will take 6-9 months to get approved. I believe L7.1 will target the plane where L6.3 would be if L6 would be deployed evenly. Similarly L8.1 will be deployed ahead of L5.3 at the plane where L5.3 would be if deployed evenly. This way first 18 planes will be ready earlier than L6.3 and L5.3 arrive to the target orbit. Then I think L9, L10, L11, etc. will be deployed in groups of 3 planes 5 degrees apart in all slots between previously deployed planes. Illustration:
Edit: You know about these things, but since this follows a previous successful amendment that was effectively the same for a different section of its constellation, is there a possibility it may be fast tracked?
Hummy I wish I understood your diagram.... And I bet I'm not the only one who doesn't. I would expect only half a circle, as the other half, is the rest of the same orbits!!! Is ist a cross section at the equator? A q. tutorial would be helpful.After this next launch (6) SpaceX will have a minimum for an operational network with U.S. coverage.
I think Alaska/Canada, 70 deg., with 3 launches will be next.
What will after that?
The new modification will take 6-9 months to get approved. I believe L7.1 will target the plane where L6.3 would be if L6 would be deployed evenly. Similarly L8.1 will be deployed ahead of L5.3 at the plane where L5.3 would be if deployed evenly. This way first 18 planes will be ready earlier than L6.3 and L5.3 arrive to the target orbit. Then I think L9, L10, L11, etc. will be deployed in groups of 3 planes 5 degrees apart in all slots between previously deployed planes. Illustration:
Edit: You know about these things, but since this follows a previous successful amendment that was effectively the same for a different section of its constellation, is there a possibility it may be fast tracked?
The dots in the diagram are ascending nodes where a satellite in a plane crosses the equatorial plane going up from the Southern into the Northern Hemisphere (North is up, South is down by convention). L1.1 satellites go up at 0 degrees and go down at 180 degrees. L4.1 satellites go up at 180 degrees and go down at 0 degrees. The orbits are separated by a few kilometers at 0 and 180 degrees altitude-wise. Below is a screenshot of Celestrak showing direction of L1.1 and L4.1 satellites when they are close to each other above the equator.
I don't think the FCC can fast track this modification. The FCC has to give time to competitors sharing the spectrum (OneWeb, Telesat, SES, Viasat, and other GEO operators) to analyze the modification and submit objections. The previous interference analysis does not apply verbatim. The competitors will drag. Then the FCC needs to analyze the objections.
Hummy I wish I understood your diagram.... And I bet I'm not the only one who doesn't. I would expect only half a circle, as the other half, is the rest of the same orbits!!! Is ist a cross section at the equator? A q. tutorial would be helpful.After this next launch (6) SpaceX will have a minimum for an operational network with U.S. coverage.
I think Alaska/Canada, 70 deg., with 3 launches will be next.
What will after that?
The new modification will take 6-9 months to get approved. I believe L7.1 will target the plane where L6.3 would be if L6 would be deployed evenly. Similarly L8.1 will be deployed ahead of L5.3 at the plane where L5.3 would be if deployed evenly. This way first 18 planes will be ready earlier than L6.3 and L5.3 arrive to the target orbit. Then I think L9, L10, L11, etc. will be deployed in groups of 3 planes 5 degrees apart in all slots between previously deployed planes. Illustration:
Edit: You know about these things, but since this follows a previous successful amendment that was effectively the same for a different section of its constellation, is there a possibility it may be fast tracked?
The dots in the diagram are ascending nodes where a satellite in a plane crosses the equatorial plane going up from the Southern into the Northern Hemisphere (North is up, South is down by convention). L1.1 satellites go up at 0 degrees and go down at 180 degrees. L4.1 satellites go up at 180 degrees and go down at 0 degrees. The orbits are separated by a few kilometers at 0 and 180 degrees altitude-wise. Below is a screenshot of Celestrak showing direction of L1.1 and L4.1 satellites when they are close to each other above the equator.
I don't think the FCC can fast track this modification. The FCC has to give time to competitors sharing the spectrum (OneWeb, Telesat, SES, Viasat, and other GEO operators) to analyze the modification and submit objections. The previous interference analysis does not apply verbatim. The competitors will drag. Then the FCC needs to analyze the objections.
While I fear you are right I hope you are wrong.
6-9 months is 12-18 launches or 720-1080 satellites is a long time for SpaceX.
Recently the FCC has surprised me on how quickly it okay'd Starlink changes.
The altitude changes are simple compared to spectrum.
Here's hoping...
Hummy I wish I understood your diagram.... And I bet I'm not the only one who doesn't. I would expect only half a circle, as the other half, is the rest of the same orbits!!! Is ist a cross section at the equator? A q. tutorial would be helpful.After this next launch (6) SpaceX will have a minimum for an operational network with U.S. coverage.
I think Alaska/Canada, 70 deg., with 3 launches will be next.
What will after that?
The new modification will take 6-9 months to get approved. I believe L7.1 will target the plane where L6.3 would be if L6 would be deployed evenly. Similarly L8.1 will be deployed ahead of L5.3 at the plane where L5.3 would be if deployed evenly. This way first 18 planes will be ready earlier than L6.3 and L5.3 arrive to the target orbit. Then I think L9, L10, L11, etc. will be deployed in groups of 3 planes 5 degrees apart in all slots between previously deployed planes. Illustration:
Edit: You know about these things, but since this follows a previous successful amendment that was effectively the same for a different section of its constellation, is there a possibility it may be fast tracked?
The dots in the diagram are ascending nodes where a satellite in a plane crosses the equatorial plane going up from the Southern into the Northern Hemisphere (North is up, South is down by convention). L1.1 satellites go up at 0 degrees and go down at 180 degrees. L4.1 satellites go up at 180 degrees and go down at 0 degrees. The orbits are separated by a few kilometers at 0 and 180 degrees altitude-wise. Below is a screenshot of Celestrak showing direction of L1.1 and L4.1 satellites when they are close to each other above the equator.
I don't think the FCC can fast track this modification. The FCC has to give time to competitors sharing the spectrum (OneWeb, Telesat, SES, Viasat, and other GEO operators) to analyze the modification and submit objections. The previous interference analysis does not apply verbatim. The competitors will drag. Then the FCC needs to analyze the objections.
While I fear you are right I hope you are wrong.
6-9 months is 12-18 launches or 720-1080 satellites is a long time for SpaceX.
Recently the FCC has surprised me on how quickly it okay'd Starlink changes.
The altitude changes are simple compared to spectrum.
Here's hoping...
19 more launches are needed to complete 550 km shell to provide coverage of the areas where 99% of the world population lives. I think they'd rather prioritize covering 99% before covering 1% (Alaska, etc.)
They don't want to complete the shell yet, just the minimal amount for operational coverage.
Completing the shell adds redundancy and bandwidth which they can add later.
Correcting my prior post...
After this next launch (6) SpaceX will have a minimum for an operational network with northern US coverage 6 more for southern US then 3 for Alaska/Canada.
My take on this is that Elon/Gwynne is waiting for military funding to develop & deploy a military requirements constellation with laser inter-satelite communication. Could even be already development funded with black budget money.
Following Tranche 0, the SDA plans to continuously upgrade and add to its on orbit constellation in two year cycles, with Tranche 1 coming online in FY2024, Tranche 2 supplementing the system in FY2026. The SDA will procure two types of satellites for Tranche 0, with one main difference being that one set of satellites will have enough optical intersatellite links to communicate with other satellites operating in LEO and satellites in medium earth orbit or geosynchronous orbit, while the other will only have enough to communicate with other satellites in LEO.
They don't want to complete the shell yet, just the minimal amount for operational coverage.
Completing the shell adds redundancy and bandwidth which they can add later.
Correcting my prior post...
After this next launch (6) SpaceX will have a minimum for an operational network with northern US coverage 6 more for southern US then 3 for Alaska/Canada.
They do want to complete the initial shell, and where the heck are you getting 3 more launches for Alaska/Canada? It seems you're just making up numbers.
Noticed that the Organizational Information document shows Musk owning 47.4% of SpaceX, with 78.3% voting control.
the architecture for supporting 911 on VoIP in general is confusing to me.Identifying the location of a VoIP calling line for E911 service is more simple than it appears.
Noticed that the Organizational Information document shows Musk owning 47.4% of SpaceX, with 78.3% voting control.
Ah damn. So the recent capital raises dropped him below 50%. I don't understand why he didn't just borrow against his sky high Tesla shares to maintain his 51% stake in SpaceX. Ah well, he knows what he is doing, no doubt.
Do they look like 1.5m dishes?The divisions on that wall are probably one foot. Domes are usually about a foot bigger than the dish. Sometimes two feet bigger. They have more dish sizes than dome sizes, so the domes can be a little oversize sometimes.
This is where the permit says they should beThat's about 30 feet from where they're sitting.
Are those gateway antennas? Behind a wall they just put up near the Boca Chica tracking dishes.
That would be a good place for them. They're within 100 meters of me, so I could just run an Ethernet cable.
Samsung is still working on their ka band model. Apple and I don't get along.Are those gateway antennas? Behind a wall they just put up near the Boca Chica tracking dishes.
That would be a good place for them. They're within 100 meters of me, so I could just run an Ethernet cable.
Dude, if you got the right gear you could grab a side lobe. Is there an iPhone app for that? ;D
What is really funny is that there is a camera pointed straight into Nomadd’s camera.They even tried to EMP Nomadd's cam with one of the tracking dishes. They lost.
Watch out man, they have you on their sights.
Location of a proposed Starlink Ground Station at CCAFS next to the SpaceX Fairing Processing Facility [BLDG 70507 at CCAFS, the old Titan era Payload Fairing Cleaning Facility].
Edit to add St Johns River WMD link (thanks for reminder gongora!)
https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=161809 (https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=161809)
So did Elon say they can start offering initial services with around 400 sats in orbit? If so that milestone will be reached tomorrow by my count.I would presume Elon meant that the satellites need to be not in some arbitrary orbit, but in very specific ones. According to this data (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.msg2066638#msg2066638) by Hummy, only 114 Starlink satellites have reached their target orbits so far. And it seems to be taking at least 4 months for each batch to populate the 3 corresponding orbital planes. So the milestone should be reached by the end of summer, I believe.
So did Elon say they can start offering initial services with around 400 sats in orbit? If so that milestone will be reached tomorrow by my count.You can forgot about first 62 Sats TinTin+Starlink V0.9 . This sats need uplink on Gateway in Ku band .
The six launches of V1.0 sats should allow service in northern U.S., and as mentioned above probably not until at least September (assuming they get everything else, including user terminals, ready by then).
Thanks! We are taking some key steps to reduce satellite brightness btw. Should be much less noticeable during orbit raise by changing solar panel angle & all sats get sunshades starting with launch 9.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1252872826731655173 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1252872826731655173)QuoteThanks! We are taking some key steps to reduce satellite brightness btw. Should be much less noticeable during orbit raise by changing solar panel angle & all sats get sunshades starting with launch 9.
Is there a reason they’ve been brighter and more noticeable lately? I feel like tons of people are spotting them all of a sudden and they went fairly unnoticed before.
Solar panel angle during orbit raise / park. We’re fixing it now.
There are now 420 operational Starlink satellites 🛰 😉
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1253084960057176068QuoteThere are now 420 operational Starlink satellites 🛰 😉
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1253084960057176068QuoteThere are now 420 operational Starlink satellites <span class="emoji-outer emoji-sizer"><span class="emoji-inner" style="background: url(chrome-extension://immhpnclomdloikkpcefncmfgjbkojmh/emoji-data/sheet_apple_32.png);background-position:73.97179788484137% 57.99059929494712%;background-size:5418.75% 5418.75%" data-codepoints="1f6f0-fe0f"></span></span> <span class="emoji-outer emoji-sizer"><span class="emoji-inner" style="background: url(chrome-extension://immhpnclomdloikkpcefncmfgjbkojmh/emoji-data/sheet_apple_32.png);background-position:59.9882491186839% 75.96944770857814%;background-size:5418.75% 5418.75%" data-codepoints="1f609"></span></span>
There are not 420 operational Starlink satellites.
How many Starlink launches needed until minor/moderate coverage? Are you still targeting service in the US & Canada by end of this year?
Private beta begins in ~3 months, public beta in ~6 months, starting with high latitudes
If you count the Tintins then 419, at least a few of which are being deorbited.
If you count the Tintins then 419, at least a few of which are being deorbited.
Did one of the V1.0-L4 sats get deorbited? Celestrak is only showing 59 for that batch.
I estimate there are now 412 operational Starlink sats with 3 reentered, 2 Tintin prototypes retired, and 5 apparently dead in orbit
If you count the Tintins then 419, at least a few of which are being deorbited.
The six launches of V1.0 sats should allow service in northern U.S., and as mentioned above probably not until at least September (assuming they get everything else, including user terminals, ready by then).
The simulation doesn't match current deployment plan and what is more important it assumes 25 degrees elevation angle. That would require user antenna to tilt very often. Some people believe antenna will tilt only once ever. In that case coverage of a Starlink satellite is significantly smaller than what is shown in the simulation.Current plans are for triple the number of planes with one third the number of satellites per plane. The actual initial coverage should be similar or slightly wider.
Good summary
SpaceX Starlink a step closer to internet service and Elon Musk has beta test details
By Eric Ralph
Posted on April 23, 2020
SpaceX’s successful April 22nd Starlink launch has brought the nascent constellation another step closer to serving customers internet and CEO Elon Musk has revealed the first significant beta test details.
[...]
twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1253115727965491202QuotePrivate beta begins in ~3 months, public beta in ~6 months, starting with high latitudes
Does Germany count as high latitude? 🤞
Yes
The principal RF engineer, Mihai Albulet, remains the same. He has signed all SpaceX space station FCC filings including the latest one. He was hired in Sep 2014. He was a professor in a Romanian University then migrated to the US to work for Microsoft on Zune media player. I hope we will be pleased at the results of his 6 years of work at SpaceX.
The gateway map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1H1x8jZs8vfjy60TvKgpbYs_grargieVw&ll=30.479815690358823%2C-70.95175456250001&z=3The service area in Canada accessible from the northern USA ground stations has at least 90% of the country's population (depending on the exact source, >90% live within about 200 km of the border). On the other hand, Canada tends to enforce rules that require telecom carriers to service ALL of Canada, if they want to sell service. Otherwise the rural regions would get no coverage at all. So selling in Canada may well require some more northern ground sites, and at least some high inclination orbits. On the other hand, StarLink would clearly be helpful towards the goal of getting broadband into rural areas in general, so maybe they would accept the promise of future expansion of the service area northward.
shows most of Mexico covered, and southern Canada as well. Whilst covering Mexico may be "incidental" due to Gateways in BC etc, covering Canada is "surely" imo intentional as Gateways are placed close to the Canadian Border. Elon is a Canadian Citizen, lived there, and has family links there. There must imo be an intention to roll out the service to Canada with or soon after the US.
The service area in Canada accessible from the northern USA ground stations has at least 90% of the country's population (depending on the exact source, >90% live within about 200 km of the border). On the other hand, Canada tends to enforce rules that require telecom carriers to service ALL of Canada, if they want to sell service. Otherwise the rural regions would get no coverage at all. So selling in Canada may well require some more northern ground sites, and at least some high inclination orbits. On the other hand, StarLink would clearly be helpful towards the goal of getting broadband into rural areas in general, so maybe they would accept the promise of future expansion of the service area northward.
The service area in Canada accessible from the northern USA ground stations has at least 90% of the country's population (depending on the exact source, >90% live within about 200 km of the border). On the other hand, Canada tends to enforce rules that require telecom carriers to service ALL of Canada, if they want to sell service. Otherwise the rural regions would get no coverage at all. So selling in Canada may well require some more northern ground sites, and at least some high inclination orbits. On the other hand, StarLink would clearly be helpful towards the goal of getting broadband into rural areas in general, so maybe they would accept the promise of future expansion of the service area northward.Or maybe Starlink partners with a Canadian provider who covers the entire country? Not familiar with Canada's rules... do they require the same level of service to everyone?
Have we seen any glimpses of the user terminals, yet?
Elon Musk giving a short presentation at a meeting for the Astro 2020 decadal, says we'll have a "VisorSat" on the next Starlink launch that has a sunshade to reduce the satellites' brightness.
.@elonmusk: The goal of @SpaceX is to make Starlink satellites "invisible to the naked eye within a week of launch". Also notes that the brightness of the objects is directly related to their configuration/orientation on orbit, which they continue to work on. #Astro2020
Musk estimates the existing Starlink satellites, including those without any brightness mitigations, will be deorbited in 3-4 years, in part because they’ll be rendered obsolete by v2 satellites with “far greater throughput.”
.@elonmusk: We're interested in replacing the earliest Starlink sats we launched as the tech progresses. We expect the 1st generation sats to be replaced on a timescale of 3-4 years. We do not want 'ancient electronics' in orbit like GEO sats up there for 15, 20 years. #Astro2020
Musk: think 550 km altitude is the right approach for LEO broadband constellations, but don’t know if there will be a lot of other systems. “The big challenge is not going bankrupt.”
.@elonmusk: "The big challenge for LEO constellations is not going bankrupt. This is quite hard. I wouldn’t say we’re out of the woods in this regard.” Wouldn’t expect to see a large number of LEO constellations. Hopes for just one (presumably his). #Starlink #Astro2020
SpaceX’s Starlink “VisorSat” launch plans revealed by Elon Musk
By Eric Ralph
Posted on April 28, 2020
CEO Elon Musk has revealed more details about SpaceX’s plans to build and launch upgraded “VisorSat” Starlink satellites, part of the company’s work to ensure that the internet constellation can coexist with astronomy.
APRIL 28, 2020
STARLINK DISCUSSION | NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
I think the issue is that the dark coating on the antenna themselves has the potential for thermal problems.Right, I got that. The dark coating will be shaded by the sunshade though, so presumably the white finish that is otherwise necessary to reflect sunlight is less important. Thus the surmise that the sunshade is effective enough that it doesn't matter what the finish of the antenna is, so they could continue to darken it but it isn't helpful (enough) to make a difference.
SpaceX is committed to making future satellite designs as dark as possible. The next generation satellite, designed to take advantage of Starship's unique launch capabilities, will be specifically designed to minimize brightness while also increasing the number of consumers that it can serve with high speed internet access.
SpaceX have put the Starlink presentation, in article form, on-line
https://www.spacex.com/news/2020/04/28/starlink-update (https://www.spacex.com/news/2020/04/28/starlink-update)
.@pbdes' Space Intel Report suggests that @SpaceX, @Eutelsat_SA on behalf of the French gov and the UK gov are taking a look at @OneWeb's assets and accounts. A bidding process including a “stalking horse” process have been approved by the bankruptcy court
Elon Musk’s SpaceX as well as Paris-based Eutelsat have looked at OneWeb Global’s assets.
SpaceX is also an interesting cash given that it already has 400+ satellites already in orbit. Perhaps it is interested in the Airbus joint-venture which OneWeb has to build satellites in Florida.
https://advanced-television.com/2020/04/28/musk-and-eutelsat-eye-oneweb-assets/ (https://advanced-television.com/2020/04/28/musk-and-eutelsat-eye-oneweb-assets/)QuoteElon Musk’s SpaceX as well as Paris-based Eutelsat have looked at OneWeb Global’s assets.QuoteSpaceX is also an interesting cash given that it already has 400+ satellites already in orbit. Perhaps it is interested in the Airbus joint-venture which OneWeb has to build satellites in Florida.
I highly doubt they'd be interested in the Airbus joint-venture - they don't need help building their satellites. They are more likely interested in spectrum/frequencies and maybe ground stations... any other ideas?
I highly doubt they'd be interested in the Airbus joint-venture - they don't need help building their satellites. They are more likely interested in spectrum/frequencies and maybe ground stations... any other ideas?The long term contracts customers already signed with OneWeb perhaps? I recall reading that the initial capacity of OneWeb was already sold out.
I highly doubt they'd be interested in the Airbus joint-venture - they don't need help building their satellites. They are more likely interested in spectrum/frequencies and maybe ground stations... any other ideas?The long term contracts customers already signed with OneWeb perhaps? I recall reading that the initial capacity of OneWeb was already sold out.
I highly doubt they'd be interested in the Airbus joint-venture - they don't need help building their satellites. They are more likely interested in spectrum/frequencies and maybe ground stations... any other ideas?The long term contracts customers already signed with OneWeb perhaps? I recall reading that the initial capacity of OneWeb was already sold out.
SpaceX would not want those contracts. I'd bet those contracts are a bigger reason for OneWeb's inability to raise more funding than anything to do with their cost structure.
https://advanced-television.com/2020/04/28/musk-and-eutelsat-eye-oneweb-assets/ (https://advanced-television.com/2020/04/28/musk-and-eutelsat-eye-oneweb-assets/)QuoteElon Musk’s SpaceX as well as Paris-based Eutelsat have looked at OneWeb Global’s assets.QuoteSpaceX is also an interesting cash given that it already has 400+ satellites already in orbit. Perhaps it is interested in the Airbus joint-venture which OneWeb has to build satellites in Florida.
I highly doubt they'd be interested in the Airbus joint-venture - they don't need help building their satellites. They are more likely interested in spectrum/frequencies and maybe ground stations... any other ideas?
SpaceX could buy oneWeb and prepare to sell it to another buyer, offer to launch the initial constellation as part of the deal.
It is in SpaceX’s long-term interests as a launch provider to try to maintain as much industry-wide launch demand as possible. Remember SpaceX’s backlog was filled out by several launches from refreshed versions of the previous batch of LEO constellations, ORBCOMM and Iridium.
Musk recently said in his darksat talk that hopefully there would be only one LEO satellite constellation internet provider in the long term (Starlink).
QuoteMusk recently said in his darksat talk that hopefully there would be only one LEO satellite constellation internet provider in the long term (Starlink).
It's hard to see how that makes sense. The demand for "internet" is enormous and can easily support a large array of competitive providers.
Competitors might struggle against Starlink but all they really need is to build better rockets and satellites.
Historically the biggest problem of satellite service providers was competing against ground-based infrastructure. The market is there, just very difficult to serve from orbit.
I thought Musk recently said in his darksat talk that hopefully there would be only one LEO satellite constellation internet provider in the long term (Starlink).
Right. Someone tweeting out the talk was too terse, and it’s possible to make this mistake in interpretation.I thought Musk recently said in his darksat talk that hopefully there would be only one LEO satellite constellation internet provider in the long term (Starlink).
He said he hoped there would be at least one.
Does SpaceX host most of these gateways or do they lease them from some else?
@TesLatino : I do a lot of remote work, so a reliable, stable, and fast connection is a must-have. Not just for the occasional. I currently have fiber Internet with an average of 900Mbps up and down streams. But half of it would suffice.
Elon Musk : Peak rate of about half that for version 1 is about right, but heavily dependent on users per cell. Aiming for latency under 20 ms.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1258517827180392449Quote@TesLatino : I do a lot of remote work, so a reliable, stable, and fast connection is a must-have. Not just for the occasional. I currently have fiber Internet with an average of 900Mbps up and down streams. But half of it would suffice.
Elon Musk : Peak rate of about half that for version 1 is about right, but heavily dependent on users per cell. Aiming for latency under 20 ms.
...
One of my consulting customers would literally kill for 1Mbps at their 3 giant commercial farms in the caribbean. Right now, all their IT budget goes to Ubiquiti and Motorola and they can barely do anything with their network. Any kind of sensors or data have to be manually read and called in over the radio, etc. They can barely communicate even by radio.
...
The service area in Canada accessible from the northern USA ground stations has at least 90% of the country's population (depending on the exact source, >90% live within about 200 km of the border). On the other hand, Canada tends to enforce rules that require telecom carriers to service ALL of Canada, if they want to sell service. Otherwise the rural regions would get no coverage at all. So selling in Canada may well require some more northern ground sites, and at least some high inclination orbits. On the other hand, StarLink would clearly be helpful towards the goal of getting broadband into rural areas in general, so maybe they would accept the promise of future expansion of the service area northward.Or maybe Starlink partners with a Canadian provider who covers the entire country? Not familiar with Canada's rules... do they require the same level of service to everyone?
Sorry, somebody knows that Space X has applied for frequency approval for Canada?? Here is Approval for TeleSat LEO https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf11064.html
or Mexico?
Thing is the Canadian government is promoting the Telesat service even though technically according to trade agreements they aren't supposed to. They promise broadband to rural Canada soon but seem to turn a blind eye to the service more likely to be available within their promised timeline. (Telesat used to be a government operation but was sold off in 1998)The service area in Canada accessible from the northern USA ground stations has at least 90% of the country's population (depending on the exact source, >90% live within about 200 km of the border). On the other hand, Canada tends to enforce rules that require telecom carriers to service ALL of Canada, if they want to sell service. Otherwise the rural regions would get no coverage at all. So selling in Canada may well require some more northern ground sites, and at least some high inclination orbits. On the other hand, StarLink would clearly be helpful towards the goal of getting broadband into rural areas in general, so maybe they would accept the promise of future expansion of the service area northward.Or maybe Starlink partners with a Canadian provider who covers the entire country? Not familiar with Canada's rules... do they require the same level of service to everyone?
Sorry, somebody knows that Space X has applied for frequency approval for Canada?? Here is Approval for TeleSat LEO https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf11064.html
or Mexico?
Will SpaceX have to apply for approval in Canada, for satellite operations, for spectrum to and from satellite and for ground stations,and anything else, such as permission to operate internet provision or telecommunications?
There are mutual recognition and pan American recognition agreements in place between the USA, Canada, and other American countries. (Mexico, central America)
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mra-arm.nsf/eng/nj00009.html
Does Canada and the USA cooperate on spectrum?
If Starlink falls under mutual recognition etc... will there still be public notifications that we can see?
Correction: Remarkably @SpaceX is supposed to disclose only how many sats have lost maneuver capabilites ABOVE injection altitiude. Given the growing risk of falling sats killing people (https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/the-odds-that-one-of-spacexs-internet-satellites-will-hit-someone) the @FCC should also care about those failing AT injection altitiude
[snipping the tweet embed]
Besides which, the risk of killing someone even without complete demisability was always so low that controlled reentry location was never planned so whether the satellites fail at maneuvering at injection altitude or not is irrelevant to what they are complaining about.Correction: Remarkably @SpaceX is supposed to disclose only how many sats have lost maneuver capabilites ABOVE injection altitiude. Given the growing risk of falling sats killing people (https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/the-odds-that-one-of-spacexs-internet-satellites-will-hit-someone) the @FCC should also care about those failing AT injection altitiude
[snipping the tweet embed]
That article is from 2018. It was correct for the 60 V0.9 sats (95% demisable) but perhaps should not be quoted anymore.
From the first V1.0 launch press kit: (https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/starlink_press_kit_nov2019.pdf)
"components of each satellite are 100% demisable and will quickly burn up in Earth’s atmosphere at the end of their life cycle—a measure that exceeds all current safety standards"
Thing is the Canadian government is promoting the Telesat service even though technically according to trade agreements they aren't supposed to. They promise broadband to rural Canada soon but seem to turn a blind eye to the service more likely to be available within their promised timeline. (Telesat used to be a government operation but was sold off in 1998)Telstar 14 and 14R were my main satellites for many years. (Both, coincidentally, were crippled by the same solar array failing after launch)
Thank you to @MAGAerospace for giving @OANN a behind the scenes peek at your advancements for revolutionary satellite systems and SpaceX Starlink — game changers!
Stay tuned.
https://twitter.com/chanelrion/status/1259256288011333638It looks just like the terminals I've seen on my father's desk 40 years ago.QuoteThank you to @MAGAerospace for giving @OANN a behind the scenes peek at your advancements for revolutionary satellite systems and SpaceX Starlink — game changers!
Stay tuned.
Why would they have an early Starlink connection? Seems hard to believe, did they just slap a logo on a piece of equipment?
Why would they have an early Starlink connection? Seems hard to believe, did they just slap a logo on a piece of equipment?Considering this terminal has Serial Number 3 (three), you can bet your sweet ass that it isn't commercially in use but used for testing internally, with a supplier, or with a potential customer willing to pay amounts of money only the military has.
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/new-small-us-air-force-satellites-could-counter-chinese-space-weaponsWhy would they have an early Starlink connection? Seems hard to believe, did they just slap a logo on a piece of equipment?
It looks like someone at OAN did an interview at a company that does military aerospace work (MAG Aerospace, https://magaero.com/). Maybe they're participating in the in-flight Starlink testing at DoD.
Current testing and experimentation, which includes an aerospace firm known as MAG (MAG Aerospace), AFRL and Air Force Special Operations Command, are looking at integrating the new satellites with the iconic AC-130 gunship.
vLEO satellites are approximately 550Km from the earth’s surface ....
Fixed Graph 5/13/2020
https://twitter.com/StarlinkUpdates/status/1260616448738824192
So am I correct in inferring from the "fixed graph" that they are starting initially with 18 orbital planes?Yes, their initial capability will be with 18 equal spaced planes. You should be able to tell that from the other version as well, the fix only corrects the in plane spacing. (though I guess seeing things equally spaced may make it a bit easier to tell where the rows are.)
The hoped for gap in Arctic coverage that @OneWeb's bankruptcy could leave (or not) is probably why @SpaceX have already filed for a Starlink gateway in Prudhoe Bay, AK (@FCC C/S: E201994) despite they've no sats in high inclination orbits yet (70°/97.6°) that could cover Alaska.Starlink was always going to cover the Arctic eventually. The proposed constellation reconfiguration speeds that up, but neither have anything to do with the OneWeb bankruptcy...
https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1260279936620859392
Do we know using official documents or the launch time where the next launch will go? Marking that would be nice.
Are you sure Tesla is the landowner?No No Idea... but I guess they must at least have a lease that allows them to install their supercharging infrastructure, and pave it etc, so I assume they can sublease or whatever to
Are you sure Tesla is the landowner?No No Idea... but I guess they must at least have a lease that allows them to install their supercharging infrastructure, and pave it etc, so I assume they can sublease or whatever to "avtimes", and pocket (most of) the rent. Thats a guess really.
Thankyou, you are right. Lazy of me. Edited to include https://landmarkdividendvids.vids.io/videos/489ddab7141ce2ccc0/flexgridtm-for-transit-stations and the name: "FlexGrid™ Colocation Ecosystem"Are you sure Tesla is the landowner?No No Idea... but I guess they must at least have a lease that allows them to install their supercharging infrastructure, and pave it etc, so I assume they can sublease or whatever to "avtimes", and pocket (most of) the rent. Thats a guess really.
avtimes is the newspaper that wrote the article, not the company that made the tower.
I had serial number 1 of the Intellian V110. It was just for six months of evaluation. We went with Seatels.Why would they have an early Starlink connection? Seems hard to believe, did they just slap a logo on a piece of equipment?Considering this terminal has Serial Number 3 (three), you can bet your sweet ass that it isn't commercially in use but used for testing internally, with a supplier, or with a potential customer willing to pay amounts of money only the military has.
Someone on reddit found a budding Starlink ground station: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/gkkm9c/starlink_base_station_photos_from_the_location_of/
Big dishes probably have power, data and two RF cables going in. Little dishes could be a one or two 5mm LMR-195s or something.Someone on reddit found a budding Starlink ground station: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/gkkm9c/starlink_base_station_photos_from_the_location_of/
Speculation on reddit says the 3 small dishes may be the user terminals, seems possible to me:
1. They are too small to warrant the big domes
2. The wiring is different, the small dishes have thin wires connected to some black/white devices on the ground, with red cables around. The big domes have very thick black cables
Also is it unusual for the big domes to be tilting towards one side?
Most domed dishes I know can point down to five degrees just fine, so I'm not sure why these would be tilted.
Not that I have any experience with phased array.
Keep an eye on that equipment in Boca, maybe you'll figure out part of what they're doing. I don't see any reason the gateways in the U.S. wouldn't go straight onto the internet. For the first generation sats, hops just slow things down unless the gateway can't connect to the internet (offshore gateway) or you want to control the communications path on the ground (military).I think there's been speculation on using user terminals at sea as sort of a mesh network to give service everywhere. That might require a two antenna system. Not sure if it's worth the trouble if sat to sat will roll out in a few months though.
I’m trying to figure out how they’re gonna manage traffic with a mixed install of ISL and ground bounce.Keep an eye on that equipment in Boca, maybe you'll figure out part of what they're doing. I don't see any reason the gateways in the U.S. wouldn't go straight onto the internet. For the first generation sats, hops just slow things down unless the gateway can't connect to the internet (offshore gateway) or you want to control the communications path on the ground (military).I think there's been speculation on using user terminals at sea as sort of a mesh network to give service everywhere. That might require a two antenna system. Not sure if it's worth the trouble if sat to sat will roll out in a few months though.
I’m trying to figure out how they’re gonna manage traffic with a mixed install of ISL and ground bounce.There was a nice video by Mark Handley about this very issue a few month ago. SpaceX have updated their satellite configuration since then, but the main principles should still hold.
I’m trying to figure out how they’re gonna manage traffic with a mixed install of ISL and ground bounce.
I imagine you're not the only one. But they needed to get the thing talking, even if ISL wasn't ready.I’m trying to figure out how they’re gonna manage traffic with a mixed install of ISL and ground bounce.Keep an eye on that equipment in Boca, maybe you'll figure out part of what they're doing. I don't see any reason the gateways in the U.S. wouldn't go straight onto the internet. For the first generation sats, hops just slow things down unless the gateway can't connect to the internet (offshore gateway) or you want to control the communications path on the ground (military).I think there's been speculation on using user terminals at sea as sort of a mesh network to give service everywhere. That might require a two antenna system. Not sure if it's worth the trouble if sat to sat will roll out in a few months though.
...
Remember when you paid $2,000 a month for a 9600bps interstate circuit?
A recent article in the New York TImes (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/13/opinion/inequality-cities-life-expectancy.html) talked about various factors in geographic inequality. One of the factors is access to broadband internet. The chart below, broken out by counties rated from urban to rural, shows that there are a lot of counties missing broadband access. So the market in the US alone should be quite significant.
Historically that sort of interpretation has been used by the telecoms to make an area appear more represented than it actually is.
@SpaceX responds to @FCC, admits that 12 #Starlink sats have lost maneuverability ABOVE injection altitude, says it has begun coordination with operators licensed in the 2016/2017 NGSO processing rounds, i.e. not with @amazon #ProjectKuiper who complained.
https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1262827282219126784
Of the V1.0 design spacecraft it would be interesting to know what order those were built in that failed.
Maybe they are getting better with each launch.
There’s still that intermediate step where ISL isn’t dense enough to service all locations. They will be, in effect, running two parallel systems. Once the have enough ISL to give good coverage, it can be used preferentially. It’s that in between that has me scratching my head.I’m trying to figure out how they’re gonna manage traffic with a mixed install of ISL and ground bounce.
Ground bounce is only needed if no gateways in range of your terminal are connected to the internet and the satellite you're connected to doesn't have ISL. When ISL is active (and by active I mean they have enough planes of ISL sats for continuous coverage of an area) then terminals that are not in range of an internet connected gateway just preferentially connect to satellites with ISL, and ground bounce goes away.
A recent article in the New York TImes (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/13/opinion/inequality-cities-life-expectancy.html) talked about various factors in geographic inequality. One of the factors is access to broadband internet. The chart below, broken out by counties rated from urban to rural, shows that there are a lot of counties missing broadband access. So the market in the US alone should be quite significant.A very interesting article highlighting a serious imbalance.
Funny story about rural broadband. If you watched Everyday Astronaut's stream today, it was pretty low bandwidth. That's because his fancy schmancy quad telco circuit thing wasn't working and it was streamed over my four year old Galaxy S7.A recent article in the New York TImes (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/13/opinion/inequality-cities-life-expectancy.html) talked about various factors in geographic inequality. One of the factors is access to broadband internet. The chart below, broken out by counties rated from urban to rural, shows that there are a lot of counties missing broadband access. So the market in the US alone should be quite significant.A very interesting article highlighting a serious imbalance.
I do have quibble, well actually more than a quibble in exactly the point you quoted. Most of us old farts think ‘computer’ when we think ‘broadband’. In metro (I emphasize metro) areas a high percentage of broadband (measured in user real time, not bits) is handled through cellphones. I suspect the article was looking at traditional broadband connections.
The inequality is still there. To hazard a generalization, most wage earners at or near minimum (students excepted) have no reason to VPN into work and log in. Spreadsheets are rarely if ever used and why write a letter or fill out a form if you can do it from home on your phone. That’s what I’m doing right now.
In small town America and rural, where cell can be dicy, the broadband is probably accurately represented.
The inequality is very real with reasoning that is waaay OT. That one example, which I think is very on topic, is much murkier than appears.
Phil
Today's FCC press release confirms Free Press' finding that the number of Americans without 25Mbps/3Mbps fixed broadband was 21.3 million.Assuming two people per household, and $40/month fee, that's a $5B market waiting to be tapped.
Smack in the middle of the future of humanity in the Cosmos, and still no decent service.Perhaps not a coincidence and not ironic. A lot of high tech stuff needs to be done far from concentrations of people, either for safety (think rocket test ranges) or interference (think radio telescopes). For a lot of science projects, one of the first steps is install fiber-optic cable (https://www.lsst.org/news/fiber-optic-installation).
The original source of this information was already posted in another Starlink thread:Mmmmok.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2082446#msg2082446
Can we please not cite the account spreading nonsensical FUD if not needed?
The problems with the previous tweet have already been pointed out, now they are complaining about SpaceX not actively coordinating with a company that has zero actual hardware that requires coordination. (not just none on-orbit, but none actually currently FCC approved to operate at all last I checked.)
First.... this is news because a few weeks ago there were only three known satellites that were publicly known to be adrift, dead, pining or whatever.
Secondly... which of these Starlinks are not functioning? The link has a document with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 satellites and some single value for an altitude.
Whenever there is an accident on the highway, does anyone just call up the police a say there are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 cars disabled a varying mile markers mile markers across the state (no specific highway numbers mentioned). I’m sure you’d agree this is pretty weird?
Let’s say there is a company that needs to know if their satellite / space station is going to get close to one of these objects. You’re saying a company doesn’t need to know and should ask for more info?
There are 8 dead satellites “somewhere” at an altitude above the ISS. You’re just out trolling for it today huh bub?
Yup.@SpaceX responds to @FCC, admits that 12 #Starlink sats have lost maneuverability ABOVE injection altitude, says it has begun coordination with operators licensed in the 2016/2017 NGSO processing rounds, i.e. not with @amazon #ProjectKuiper who complained.
twitter dotcom/Megaconstellati/status/1262827282219126784
Reading the rest of the tweets from that account shows a pretty biased viewpoint.
106. Low latency. We prohibit providers that intend to use satellite technology from selecting low latency in combination with any of the performance tiers. We received no comments from providers intending to use geostationary satellites or other parties that provided specific technology solutions using these types of satellites that could meet the low latency standards adopted in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order, nor are we aware of any such solutions.243 In fact, geostationary satellite providers even objected to the methodology we adopted for measuring compliance with the voice service quality requirements for the high latency performance tier that will be applicable to Auction 904.244
107. Similarly, no provider that intends to use non-geostationary orbit satellites will be permitted to select low latency in combination with any of the performance tiers. A service provider that uses medium earth orbit satellites claims it is able to offer a low latency service,245 but admits it is unable to meet the low latency standards that we adopted.246 Service providers that intend use low earth orbit satellites claim that the latency of their technology is “dictated by the laws of physics” due to the altitude of the satellite’s orbit. 247
108. While satellites in low earth orbit may not be subject to the same absolute physical latency limitations as higher-orbiting satellites, we disagree that the altitude of a satellite’s orbit is the sole determinant of a satellite applicant’s ability to meet the Commission’s low latency performance requirements. As commenters have explained, the latency experienced by customers of a specific technology is not merely a matter of the physics of one link in the transmission.248 Other factors will affect network performance as well: The latency of a satellite network, in particular, consists of the “propagation delay,” the time it takes for a radio wave to travel from the satellite to the earth’s surface and back, and the “processing delay,” the time it takes for the network to process the data.249 It is true that a radio wave takes less time to travel from an earth station to a low earth orbiting satellite and back when compared to a geosynchronous or medium earth orbit satellite.250 Propagation delay in a satellite network does not account for latency in other parts of the network such as processing, routing, and transporting traffic to its destination.251 Moreover, if the network uses satellite-to-satellite transmissions, the latency of these transmissions could add to the latency experienced by the end user. Further, the inherent latency of earth station to satellite round trips does not account for latency in other portions of the network, which could also affect the latency experienced by the consumer. As Viasat notes, “[m]easured latency depends, among other things, on the space and ground segments and how those segments are designed, the performance of various network components, and the distance to the FCC-designated [Internet exchange point].”252 We do not yet have sufficient basis to assess the actual design and performance of these components for planned low earth orbit satellite constellations.
109. In the absence of a real world example of a non-geostationary orbit satellite network offering mass market fixed service to residential consumers that is able to meet our 100 ms round trip latency requirements, Commission staff could not conclude that such an applicant is reasonably capable of meeting the Commission’s low latency requirements, and so we foreclose such applications.25
I really can't complain too much about the FCC's rationale. They say they're not allowing it because no NGSO systems have actually provided direct to consumer broadband service yet and shown their actual performance in that market. They're not wrong. They have a limited amount of money to allocate and want to ensure they have a high probability of getting the promised connections actually put into service at the promised performance levels. If SpaceX meets their goals over the next couple years then they will be able to meet those performance levels, but the service doesn't exist yet.If they existed and had provided service to the market, then they wouldn't need subsidies, now, would they? NGSO satellite internet like SpaceX is pursuing, once demonstrated on the market, would basically have already solved the problem the FCC hopes to solve with subsidies. You don't NEED to provide subsidies for a service that already exists.
I really can't complain too much about the FCC's rationale. They say they're not allowing it because no NGSO systems have actually provided direct to consumer broadband service yet and shown their actual performance in that market. They're not wrong. They have a limited amount of money to allocate and want to ensure they have a high probability of getting the promised connections actually put into service at the promised performance levels. If SpaceX meets their goals over the next couple years then they will be able to meet those performance levels, but the service doesn't exist yet.The statements from the FCC are an outright lie, and are in no way, shape, or form an acceptable justification. A complaint (or previous FCC statement, I forget which) misrepresented SpaceX's satellites as unable to provide low latency service because "dictated by physics." SpaceX responded to this by pointing out that the laws of physics actually allow satellites to have as good or better latency than fiber. They now then change the subject and say "oh but processing delay" as if that wasn't something that affects terrestrial networks as well.
I wouldn't assume that everybody involved in compiling this report was unaware of what the results would be. When you're under orders to do something dishonorable, there are ways to make things right without quitting your job. A lot depends on where your sense of duty lies. A lot of things like this work out with the person or people who made them work out not getting credit, or even getting blamed for opposing the right thing. Not everybody lives for the recognition they get.
Man, that was vague.
The $16 billion will be distributed over 10 years, so ISPs that get funded will collect a total of about $1.6 billion a year and face requirements to deploy broadband service to a certain number of homes and businesses.2. a share of $1.6B would be handy, but not the billions SX needs to build a city on Mars.
The premise for the decision is that none of the NGSO constellations is providing direct to consumer broadband and haven't demonstrated their performance in that market, which is demonstrably true.That's an absurd rationale. If the NGSO constellations had already demonstrated performance in that market, they wouldn't need any subsidies because NGSO constellations by their nature are already widely available once they're available at all (with few exceptions). This is unlike ground networks which need money to expand fully and so can expand a little bit at a time.
Really, some homers root for SpaceX to win government funding like it’s the hometown ball team; any time they lose it’s cuz the other guy cheated or the umps are out to get them. Gongora’s point above is determinative; the reasoning is sufficient by itself for the entire decision. There will no doubt be additional opportunities for Starlink again later if it gets closer to IOC.No, this rationale is ridiculous. It doesn't make sense to give NGSO constellations subsidies once it no longer needs them!
...Starlink depends on SpaceX and Starling surviving, and in re-investment in order to continually renew the constellation....I don't agree with this argument. Iridium, Globalstar, and ORBCOMM's constellations all survived the bankruptcy process and were able to refresh afterward.
In the absence of a real world example of a non-geostationary orbit satellite network offering mass market fixed service to residential consumers that is able to meet our 100ms round trip latency requirements, Commission staff could not conclude that such an applicant is reasonably capable of meeting the Commission's low latency requirements, and so we foreclose such applications.
Under Pai's proposal, applicants must demonstrate "operational experience and financial qualifications" to participate in the auction. Companies that don't have at least two years of experience offering broadband service must submit three years worth of independently audited financial statements "including balance sheets, net income, and cash flow as well as the audit opinion and accompanying notes." An applicant without two years experience "must also submit... a letter of interest from a qualified bank stating that the bank would provide a letter of credit to the applicant if the applicant becomes a winning bidder and is selected for bids of a certain dollar amount."
Seriously, Ajit Pai (Trump-appointed head of the FCC) set an absurdly high bar of *already* being a mass market provider. In other words, even if SpaceX (or OneWeb or whoever the first NGSO provider is) fully proves everything else technically/financially/etc, because they're not literally an incumbent, they're not eligible for subsidy.What basis does the FCC (stop referring to Pai, he’s just the current agency head, not its overlord) have to judge SpaceX’s ability to actually produce those results? Going on SpaceX’s past performance vs. Predictions, and assuming it actually can get to the # of launches it says it needs, it will likely be 2024-2025 before it reaches the capability that addresses this program. That’s nearly halfway into this.QuoteIn the absence of a real world example of a non-geostationary orbit satellite network offering mass market fixed service to residential consumers that is able to meet our 100ms round trip latency requirements, Commission staff could not conclude that such an applicant is reasonably capable of meeting the Commission's low latency requirements, and so we foreclose such applications.
It's hard to see the way this is defined as being anything other than favoritism for incumbents. By definition ("mass market"), there's no allowable way for a non-incumbent NGSO to prove eligibility to the commission. And then, awarding 10 years at once, in a rush for some reason...
Sounds familiar to when the USAF put a whole bunch of launches out of competition, which SpaceX had to sue in order to get them to agree to make competitively awarded... https://spacenews.com/spacex-air-force-reach-agreement/
EDIT:There's more text that explicitly disadvantages non-incumbents:QuoteUnder Pai's proposal, applicants must demonstrate "operational experience and financial qualifications" to participate in the auction. Companies that don't have at least two years of experience offering broadband service must submit three years worth of independently audited financial statements "including balance sheets, net income, and cash flow as well as the audit opinion and accompanying notes." An applicant without two years experience "must also submit... a letter of interest from a qualified bank stating that the bank would provide a letter of credit to the applicant if the applicant becomes a winning bidder and is selected for bids of a certain dollar amount."
This looks more and more like an explicit hand-out to incumbents and incumbents only, with all others given mere scraps and not allowed to fully compete. There is no way this accidental.
It was the article that referred to it as Pai's plan. You'll have to take that up with the author of the article. And yeah, Pai made this decision, so it's absolutely fair to refer to Pai.Seriously, Ajit Pai (Trump-appointed head of the FCC) set an absurdly high bar of *already* being a mass market provider. In other words, even if SpaceX (or OneWeb or whoever the first NGSO provider is) fully proves everything else technically/financially/etc, because they're not literally an incumbent, they're not eligible for subsidy.What basis does the FCC (stop referring to Pai, he’s just the current agency head, not its overlord)QuoteIn the absence of a real world example of a non-geostationary orbit satellite network offering mass market fixed service to residential consumers that is able to meet our 100ms round trip latency requirements, Commission staff could not conclude that such an applicant is reasonably capable of meeting the Commission's low latency requirements, and so we foreclose such applications.
It's hard to see the way this is defined as being anything other than favoritism for incumbents. By definition ("mass market"), there's no allowable way for a non-incumbent NGSO to prove eligibility to the commission. And then, awarding 10 years at once, in a rush for some reason...
have to judge SpaceX’s ability to actually produce those results?The FCC as a whole are generally *ahem* professionals who know what they're doing and understand technical details.
Going on SpaceX’s past performance vs. Predictions, and assuming it actually can get to the # of launches it says it needs, it will likely be 2024-2025 before it reaches the capability that addresses this program. That’s nearly halfway into this.No. SpaceX will have capacity to start addressing this even with the satellites it has launched or will within a couple weeks. But regardless, the performance period is *10 years*, a lifetime in something fast moving like IT. 2024-5 would only be halfway through the performance period, yet would be barred from truthfully bidding.
You’re acting like Starlink terminals are available on Amazon tomorrow....Fine, then structure the program not to lock out competition by non-incumbents for 10 years.
...Oh, I'm familiar alright. There's been a long history of these same incumbents taking the money and then never building out or finding other ways of avoiding accountability. Also, long behavior of uncompetitive behavior by incumbents. I say, let non-incumbents have a shot. If Verizon or whoever wants to compete for those customers, then let them.
You really aren’t familiar with how large infrastructure projects are financed? It’s not with a one year payoff.
Starlink at 550 Km is deliberately low enough for natural de-orbit, in a much shorter time than the others. Iridium is 781 Km, Globstar 1414Km...Starlink depends on SpaceX and Starling surviving, and in re-investment in order to continually renew the constellation....I don't agree with this argument. Iridium, Globalstar, and ORBCOMM's constellations all survived the bankruptcy process and were able to refresh afterward.
I don't see this as the fault of FCC, they're under enormous pressure from existing telecom companies,Part of their job is protecting consumers from monopolistic companies. The FCC caving to pressure from them is not only not an excuse, but in itself something worse
What are y’all talking about? Explicitly excluding NGSO constellations is ridiculous. Did any of you read the article? It’s unforgivable. No one is saying NGSO constellations should be handed anything, just be given a fair shake at competition! Why should they be excluded from fair competition for 10 years???
I can’t believe I’m hearing a bunch o space enthusiasts justify excluding space based Internet (even when it meets all the technical requirements) in favor of handouts to massive cable internet incumbents with years of monopolistic practices and terrible customer service. (Not to mention a long history of abusing rural internet subsidies) These companies are not on your side!
You really need to come up with something other than "SpaceX shouldFixed it for you.get all the moneynot be summarily excluded from getting any of the money because I want them to."
It's hard to see the way this is defined as being anything other than favoritism for incumbents. By definition ("mass market"), there's no allowable way for a non-incumbent NGSO to prove eligibility to the commission. And then, awarding 10 years at once, in a rush for some reason...
Sounds similar to when the USAF put a whole bunch of launches out of competition, which SpaceX had to sue in order to get them to agree to make competitively awarded... https://spacenews.com/spacex-air-force-reach-agreement/
There's more text that explicitly disadvantages non-incumbents:QuoteUnder Pai's proposal, applicants must demonstrate "operational experience and financial qualifications" to participate in the auction. Companies that don't have at least two years of experience offering broadband service must submit three years worth of independently audited financial statements "including balance sheets, net income, and cash flow as well as the audit opinion and accompanying notes." An applicant without two years experience "must also submit... a letter of interest from a qualified bank stating that the bank would provide a letter of credit to the applicant if the applicant becomes a winning bidder and is selected for bids of a certain dollar amount."
This looks more and more like an explicit hand-out to incumbents and incumbents only, with all others given mere scraps and not allowed to fully compete. There is no way this accidental.
I expect a recapitulation of what happened the last time -- Starlink forces the FCC to allow them to compete, then Starlink walks away without bidding, saying they didn't need the money anyway.What do you mean by last time? Because when they did that with EELV, they bid and won. (That, like this is structured so that win should not equal take all.)
What do you mean by last time?Connect America:
Good point, I had missed the details of that. The fact that they previously got permission to bid low latency further shows that the current ruling makes no sense.What do you mean by last time?Connect America:
https://spacenews.com/spacex-wont-seek-u-s-rural-broadband-subsidies-for-starlink-constellation/
with actual service ready within months, I expect that they actually intend to bid this time.I guess we'll see.
This is just moving the goalposts so far that spaceX would already have to effectively be operating in the market areas these subsidies are supposed to be enabling in order to qualify them. Remember, NGSO constellations are uniquely suited for providing service to rural areas.with actual service ready within months, I expect that they actually intend to bid this time.I guess we'll see.
I'd still like to see some evidence that they can get low latency on anything approaching a useful scale. A demo with a handful of terminals doesn't count IMHO.
Y'all are ignoring the fact that this auction isn't to provide seed funding to new technologies that may hopefully work in the future.Starlink is not radical new technology, RF comms is relatively trivial. Phased arrays have been used for decades. The only thing new about it is the cheap enough launch to actually be at all affordable to launch satellites in these numbers and orbits, and that has already been demonstrated since enough sats for initial capability are on orbit. If they were claiming that user terminal costs will not be within some requirement or something, at least I could see a reasonable concern, but that is not what they are saying at all.
No NGSO constellation has yet shown the user terminal equipment for providing consumer broadband, including SpaceX. A lot of people in the satellite industry, both service providers and the analysts following those companies, and probably a lot of people in government, aren't going to believe SpaceX built the magic box until SpaceX actually demonstrates it, and I really don't blame them. No one has yet demonstrated what SpaceX says they're going to provide. They need to show that they have it and it works. As soon as SpaceX shows that working user terminal, Starlink consumer broadband is real. Until then it's a big question mark.Questioning whether they can make a $200 phased array is reasonable. Questioning whether the latency would be <100ms is inexcusably ignorant. Please stop pretending that the FCC made a different argument than they did, and please stop making up strawmen to argue against.
The FCC basically said they're not going to let satellite compete in that performance tier until someone actually demonstrates it. I agree it's highly unlikely SpaceX could have latency that high but at this point they just need to demonstrate a working system. They have not demonstrated their consumer broadband equipment.As I already stated, in that case no one should be allowed to bid those tiers, because no one has demonstrated low latency service to these areas. The FCC is not complaining about the ability for them to build consumer broadband equipment, and if it works at all at any speed tier, then it will have the low latency. This is nothing less than a completely bogus argument from the FCC, and you continue acting like they are saying something entirely different than what they actually did.
As I already stated, in that case no one should be allowed to bid those tiers, because no one has demonstrated low latency service to these areas. The FCC is not complaining about the ability for them to build consumer broadband equipment, and if it works at all at any speed tier, then it will have the low latency. This is nothing less than a completely bogus argument from the FCC, and you continue acting like they are saying something entirely different than what they actually did.
There is no technology involved that has not demonstrated the required performance. The only thing in between old satellite systems and low latency is location. Putting a satellite in LEO is not in itself "technology" and was demonstrated in the 60s anyway.As I already stated, in that case no one should be allowed to bid those tiers, because no one has demonstrated low latency service to these areas. The FCC is not complaining about the ability for them to build consumer broadband equipment, and if it works at all at any speed tier, then it will have the low latency. This is nothing less than a completely bogus argument from the FCC, and you continue acting like they are saying something entirely different than what they actually did.
You're missing the point. Other technologies have demonstrated low latency consumer broadband. NGSO satellite systems have not. Whether low latency has been demonstrated in a particular town is irrelevant.
As I already stated, in that case no one should be allowed to bid those tiers, because no one has demonstrated low latency service to these areas. The FCC is not complaining about the ability for them to build consumer broadband equipment, and if it works at all at any speed tier, then it will have the low latency. This is nothing less than a completely bogus argument from the FCC, and you continue acting like they are saying something entirely different than what they actually did.
You're missing the point. Other technologies have demonstrated low latency consumer broadband. NGSO satellite systems have not. Whether low latency has been demonstrated in a particular town is irrelevant.
It is not Starlink that would be trying to get customers away from terrestrial providers but in all likelihood terrestrial providers trying to get customers away from Starlink. Of the two Starlink is a year or less away from being able to provide service. For most of the rural areas receiving terrestrial provider services is at least a year or more or even never. What is the number one time consuming task for terrestrial providers. right of way permits for the fiber/copper or even microwave links (towers permits and FCC reviews for interference).As I already stated, in that case no one should be allowed to bid those tiers, because no one has demonstrated low latency service to these areas. The FCC is not complaining about the ability for them to build consumer broadband equipment, and if it works at all at any speed tier, then it will have the low latency. This is nothing less than a completely bogus argument from the FCC, and you continue acting like they are saying something entirely different than what they actually did.
You're missing the point. Other technologies have demonstrated low latency consumer broadband. NGSO satellite systems have not. Whether low latency has been demonstrated in a particular town is irrelevant.
The question then becomes, if Starlink then demonstrates low latency service to the scale required, then those rural areas are no longer underserved (ie, Starlink is available). So then there is no reason to provide funding in that case either because low latency broadband is available, but their competitors will already have secured 10 years of funding (which Starlink will have to compete against)
Ah but the shutout only protects the terrestrial provider from other terrestrial providers since they would have to share at some point right of way's. There are no legal way for the FCC to shut out NGSO's from competing against the terrestrial providers. The subsidies are to get the terrestrial providers to spend the high infrastructure costs that they would likely never recover from just the acquired subscribers fee's in the rural markets. The auctions are for terrestrial right of ways for an area like what was done for cell towers initially. Starlink already has the licences to operate from the FCC anywhere in the US without restrictions other than what was already specified in the licence.Same for OneWeb, and now they're bankrupt.It is not Starlink that would be trying to get customers away from terrestrial providers but in all likelihood terrestrial providers trying to get customers away from Starlink. Of the two Starlink is a year or less away from being able to provide service. ...As I already stated, in that case no one should be allowed to bid those tiers, because no one has demonstrated low latency service to these areas. The FCC is not complaining about the ability for them to build consumer broadband equipment, and if it works at all at any speed tier, then it will have the low latency. This is nothing less than a completely bogus argument from the FCC, and you continue acting like they are saying something entirely different than what they actually did.
You're missing the point. Other technologies have demonstrated low latency consumer broadband. NGSO satellite systems have not. Whether low latency has been demonstrated in a particular town is irrelevant.
The question then becomes, if Starlink then demonstrates low latency service to the scale required, then those rural areas are no longer underserved (ie, Starlink is available). So then there is no reason to provide funding in that case either because low latency broadband is available, but their competitors will already have secured 10 years of funding (which Starlink will have to compete against)
Because NGSO constellations, like rural broadband build-outs, are ALSO insanely capital intensive. It's ridiculous that Pai is couching this in terms of technological capacity. He's effectively engaging in a "technology is magic and can't be understood, only whether it's already being used by everyone or not" argument I see being used so often as a last resort on the Internet. With inspection by the FCC's experts, it can be ensured one way or another whether the technology is capable.
The only real question, JUST like terrestrial broadband build-out in rural areas, is about capital expenses, and this is exactly what the subsidies are *supposed* to address in both cases.
This ruling by Pai also seals the death sentence of OneWeb. No one will buy their assets and bring them to market if they're shut out from their main market for a decade.
So does this tie in with delaying FCC band permits for the Boca Chica tests?
For example if StarShip starts launching a half thousand or more StarLink sats at one time then Comcast and ATT would be choking in shock. So is the FCC intentionally trying to slow SpaceX down?
It comes down to economics that Starlink business case does not require a subsidy to be successful provider of services to rural US subscribers. But terrestrial providers have stated to the FCC that without subsidies they would not be economically successful service providers to rural US subscribers. There is even a probable average subscriber density level per square km below which that even with a subsidy it is still not economically feasible business case for terrestrial providers. This is not the case with Starlink.This is just way too black and white. The reality is Starlink is very precarious and could easily still fail, and even existing providers could probably provide service if they wanted to, just not AS profitable or AS low risk as urban areas.
It comes down to economics that Starlink business case does not require a subsidy to be successful provider of services to rural US subscribers. But terrestrial providers have stated to the FCC that without subsidies they would not be economically successful service providers to rural US subscribers. There is even a probable average subscriber density level per square km below which that even with a subsidy it is still not economically feasible business case for terrestrial providers. This is not the case with Starlink.
Sounds similar to when the USAF put a whole bunch of launches out of competition, which SpaceX had to sue in order to get them to agree to make competitively awarded... https://spacenews.com/spacex-air-force-reach-agreement/
^ This. It feels exactly like the block buy.QuoteThere's more text that explicitly disadvantages non-incumbents:QuoteUnder Pai's proposal, applicants must demonstrate "operational experience and financial qualifications" to participate in the auction. Companies that don't have at least two years of experience offering broadband service must submit three years worth of independently audited financial statements "including balance sheets, net income, and cash flow as well as the audit opinion and accompanying notes." An applicant without two years experience "must also submit... a letter of interest from a qualified bank stating that the bank would provide a letter of credit to the applicant if the applicant becomes a winning bidder and is selected for bids of a certain dollar amount."
This looks more and more like an explicit hand-out to incumbents and incumbents only, with all others given mere scraps and not allowed to fully compete. There is no way this accidental.
Not accidental at all. Remember, our FCC chair has a great sense of humor (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/ajit-pai-jokes-about-being-a-brainwashed-verizon-puppet-at-the-fcc/).
Maybe there is a way to challenge these awards in Court, but I don’t know if it’s a good idea to sue the agency you are relying on to give you permits.
Why should they be excluded from fair competition for 10 years???
Not under the current rules from my understanding. That’s what makes this questionable! If they had yearly or biyearly on-ramping, it’d be far more reasonable.Why should they be excluded from fair competition for 10 years???
Aren't there onramps every couple of years? Seems like I remember this a few years ago and SpaceX didn't bid then.
The total is $20B. Phase 1 (the auction later this year) is $16B. Phase 2 is $4B sometime in the future.Will Phase 2 be open to companies who are not a part of Phase 1?
The total is $20B. Phase 1 (the auction later this year) is $16B. Phase 2 is $4B sometime in the future.Will Phase 2 be open to companies who are not a part of Phase 1?
The FCC won't scrap $16 billion phase 1. Once the auction starts on Oct 22 there is no stopping. All authorized winners will get all awarded money (EDIT: unless they fail to meet the interim milestone 3 years after authorization or just fail midway). $4 billion phase 2 which doesn't have a date may be scrapped due to Starlink availability....that's assuming there is a Starlink after most of their main customers were swept up by subsidized competitors.
Watch the US carriers bid wireless broadband solutions and scoop up most of the funding... only to then employ Starlink as backhaul to these new rural towers. Top o' the food chain.
$VSAT also says that its planned MEO constellation will move to LEO, anticipating that the FCC might shift its initial plan rejecting LEO satellites for rural broadband subsidies (https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/1262900212500226055).
But the VSAT LEO constellation would be much smaller, only about 300.
Mark Dankberg -- Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Okay. So the first step is we have already filed for NGSO constellation at MEO. So basically, what our filing does now is it just lowers the orbit from MEO to LEO. We had a purpose in mind for the MEO, but the biggest factor in wanting to go over the altitude is really the amount of funding that the FCC is aiming at low specifications. So they put a particular threshold on it, which was 100 milliseconds and if you know, one of the things that we've been following closely is what the rules are for bidding for those subsidies. And just as a reminder, we had participated in what was called the CAF II or The Connect America Fund subsidies. So we have a really good understanding of how they work and what the implications were -- of those rules, including the low latency rules. So quite a while ago, we had started looking at what would be involved in lowering the altitude of the license, how we were just recently granted. So that -- it does involve more satellites than we would have used in MEO, but the satellites are a lot smaller and less expensive than they otherwise would be, but the main attraction is that things are evolving, but assuming that the FCC does allow LEO to be eligible in the Phase II part of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. The opportunity for funding is far in excess of the increase in what the constellation would cost. So that's the main reasoning behind it. The main point, I'd make is that we're early in the process, it's the first step is to file the amendment that we did, that would allow us to use the spectrum that we're already granted that over altitude.
For the simplest fiber optic cable it costs at least $6,000/mile for the cable and installation along the roadway. So per each subscriber the service provider must get back their investment of $3,000 per customer over the life of the installation which is for this case is a period of 10 years. The total paid by a customer for service over 10 years at $100/month is $12,000. But 80% of that is paid for the internet connection to backbone, taxes and other fees like equipment rental/payoff. So only $2,400 is able to be paid toward the infrastructure costs.
So do we expect starlink to beat fiber on latency?
Without optical ISL?
With optical ISL?
I would guess both but definitely with ISL.
To show just how much of a cost struggle providing terrestrial broadband to rural... For the simplest fiber optic cable it costs at least $6,000/mile for the cable and installation along the roadway.Bit of a strawman, I think. I don't think anyone is rationally suggesting doing fiber to the house for every rural customer. There are plenty of ways to get broadband with terrestrial systems without doing that. Remember that the RDOF minimum tier is only 25/3 Mbps down/up.
So do we expect starlink to beat fiber on latency?
Without optical ISL?
With optical ISL?
I would guess both but definitely with ISL.
Starlink is not going to beat fiber on latency without ISL, and can only theoretically beat fiber over long distances with ISL (unless your fiber network sucks). I have single digit latency on fiber.
There was discussion on this awhile back. My take from the discussion was that it would be roughly a wash between non-ISL and fiber and faster with ISL. The reasoning was higher speed of light in a vacuum and signal aggregation and routing. The ground bounce latency has all the same issues of signal aggregation and routing as fiber but only 3-4 jumps across CONUS. With ISL, light speed in a vacuum trumps. Fiber also needs repeaters (every few miles?) or the signal smears out. These are extremely low latency, but many of them.So do we expect starlink to beat fiber on latency?
Without optical ISL?
With optical ISL?
I would guess both but definitely with ISL.
Starlink is not going to beat fiber on latency without ISL, and can only theoretically beat fiber over long distances with ISL (unless your fiber network sucks). I have single digit latency on fiber.
FWIW I get 5-6ms latency from a rooftop microwave dish. Fiber would provide higher throughput, but RF can be very responsive. Local ISP (https://www.monkeybrains.net) for the win.
In his interview with Irene Klotz in the run-up to DM-2, Musk states that...Quote from: MuskThe fully considered cost of the terminal is the hardest challenge for any space-based communication system that is meant for the general public.Quote...that will take us a few years to solve that.
About three-quarters of the way into the audio...
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/podcast-interview-spacexs-elon-musk
Nothing Earth-shattering. Basically, what we already know. But it's good to hear it stated clearly. And it's good to hear that the satellites are working well.
To show just how much of a cost struggle providing terrestrial broadband to rural... For the simplest fiber optic cable it costs at least $6,000/mile for the cable and installation along the roadway.Bit of a strawman, I think. I don't think anyone is rationally suggesting doing fiber to the house for every rural customer. There are plenty of ways to get broadband with terrestrial systems without doing that. Remember that the RDOF minimum tier is only 25/3 Mbps down/up.
So do we expect starlink to beat fiber on latency?
Without optical ISL?
With optical ISL?
I would guess both but definitely with ISL.
Starlink is not going to beat fiber on latency without ISL, and can only theoretically beat fiber over long distances with ISL (unless your fiber network sucks). I have single digit latency on fiber.
How about intercontinental?
How do you measure it?
I just tried ping.
PING google.com (172.217.10.206): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 172.217.10.206: icmp_seq=0 ttl=44 time=42 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.10.206: icmp_seq=1 ttl=44 time=40 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.10.206: icmp_seq=2 ttl=44 time=37 ms
PING home.cern (188.184.37.219): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 188.184.37.219: icmp_seq=0 ttl=49 time=120 ms
64 bytes from 188.184.37.219: icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=118 ms
64 bytes from 188.184.37.219: icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=120 ms
EDIT: I am on comcrap BTW
This is really getting a bit offtopic for Starlink, but when I was playing with it earlier (from Atlanta) I got 80ms to Seattle, 160ms to Japan, 100ms to France. The results for Seattle could vary 20ms between various servers chosen on the speed test site. I used JAXA and Arianespace for the other sites. My ping time for google.com is usually about 4ms.
9b. On Starlink, we've designed the system so that satellites will quickly passively deorbit due to atmospheric drag in the case of failure (though we fight hard to actively deorbit them if possible). We still have some redundancy inside the vehicle, where it is easy and makes sense, but we primarily trust in having system-level fault tolerance: multiple satellites in view that can serve a user. Launching more satellites is our core competency, so we generally use that kind of fault tolerance wherever we can, and it allows us to provide even better service most of the time when there aren't problems. – Matt
4b. For Starlink, we're currently generating more than 5TB a day of [telemetry] data! We're actively reducing the amount each device sends, but we're also rapidly scaling up the number of satellites (and users) in the system. As far as analysis goes, doing the detection of problems onboard is one of the best ways to reduce how much telemetry we need to send and store (only send it when it's interesting). The alerting system we use for this is shared between Starlink and Dragon. – Matt
For some level of scope on Starlink, each launch of 60 satellites contains more than 4,000 Linux computers. The constellation has more than 30,000 Linux nodes (and more than 6,000 microcontrollers) in space right now. And because we share a lot of our Linux platform infrastructure with Falcon and Dragon, they get the benefit of our more than 180 vehicle-years of on-orbit test time. – Matt
The tools and concepts are the same, and many of the engineers on the team have worked on both projects (myself included), but being our own customer on Starlink allows us to do things a bit differently. The Starlink hardware is quite flexible – it takes a ton of software to make it work, and small improvements in the software can have a huge impact on the quality of service we provide and the number of people we can serve.
On this kind of project, pace of innovation is everything. We've spent a bunch of time making it easier, safer, and faster to update our constellation. We tend to update the software running on all the Starlink satellites about once a week, with a bunch of smaller test deployments happening as well. By the time we launch a batch of satellites, they're usually on a build that already older than what's on the rest of the constellation! Our ground services are a big part of this story as well – they're a huge part of making the system work, and we tend to deploy them a couple times a week or more.
And about deorbit – the satellites are programmed to go into a high-drag state if they haven't heard from the ground in a long time. This lets atmospheric drag pull them down in a very predictable way. – Matt
There's a ton of good Starlink simulations and videos out there (and the team loves seeing what people have been able to come up with). The one you linked [Mark Handley at UCL's] is great! One of my other favorites is this one (it's simple, but mesmerizing): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=857UM4ErX9A – Matt
A few days ago, SpaceX started hiring production associates in Hawthorne for the user terminal. This is usually one of the last steps before production, although the description of the position makes it sound like they aren't quite ready for mass production.Yes it does sound like the step just prior to higher level production counts. Production of many production prototype units to do a larger fielding of UTs for larger testing of Starlink network capabilities.
https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4748311002?gh_jid=4748311002
What does Elon mean when he says they are still working to reduce user terminal cost? Some assume it is still $5,000 to 10,000. But maybe they are just at $500 to 1000, that's good enough for early rollout. The goal was declared in the range of $200. If we see a substantial public beta by the end of the year, it won't be much more than $1000.
What does Elon mean when he says they are still working to reduce user terminal cost?
Does it make sense that tesla could do the customer facing part of this op?
They do have solar and cars with customer interface and billing.
Roll it into the existing tesla app.
Elon Musk: Starlink's greatest hurdle is user terminals not satellites - Business InsiderDoes anyone have the source info for that, not a Tweet link of a paywalled article?
https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1268897329207103488
What does Elon mean when he says they are still working to reduce user terminal cost? Some assume it is still $5,000 to 10,000. But maybe they are just at $500 to 1000, that's good enough for early rollout. The goal was declared in the range of $200. If we see a substantial public beta by the end of the year, it won't be much more than $1000.
It probably is in the 5k- 10k range has to be amortized over say 2 year contract. Norm now, it's leased so you never own it and must be returned at the end of the contract. Elon never been about eating cost. So the private & public beta terminals might be expensive so them lowering the cost of the terminals while also increasing their user base will bring it down to say $200 range & spred that out over 2 years
So as a baseline, what is the current actual cost to the company for a traditional satellite internet dish plus supporting equipment?
I would guess no more than a few hundred dollars nowadays, but what about when they were first being rolled out?
What does Elon mean when he says they are still working to reduce user terminal cost? Some assume it is still $5,000 to 10,000. But maybe they are just at $500 to 1000, that's good enough for early rollout. The goal was declared in the range of $200. If we see a substantial public beta by the end of the year, it won't be much more than $1000.
It probably is in the 5k- 10k range has to be amortized over say 2 year contract. Norm now, it's leased so you never own it and must be returned at the end of the contract. Elon never been about eating cost. So the private & public beta terminals might be expensive so them lowering the cost of the terminals while also increasing their user base will bring it down to say $200 range & spred that out over 2 years
They can never recover $5000 from private end users and still make a decent net profit.
So as a baseline, what is the current actual cost to the company for a traditional satellite internet dish plus supporting equipment?
I would guess no more than a few hundred dollars nowadays, but what about when they were first being rolled out?
So as a baseline, what is the current actual cost to the company for a traditional satellite internet dish plus supporting equipment? I would guess no more than a few hundred dollars nowadays, but what about when they were first being rolled out?
So as a baseline, what is the current actual cost to the company for a traditional satellite internet dish plus supporting equipment?
I would guess no more than a few hundred dollars nowadays, but what about when they were first being rolled out?
VSAT - very small aperture terminal.Thanks for that retrospective.
...
For "business class" (100Mbps down and ???Mpbs up) CPE costs ~$20-60K+ based on their most recently accessible prices list (which use larger antennas and more sophisticated equipment).It`s depends from service
And pizzas on poles.
It's exciting for SpaceX to have aggressive Starlink goals like >$30 billion in revenue by 2025, but being a service provider to consumers at global scale working with user equipment that can break and customers who churn isn't simple to automate. Up front SpaceX CAC won't be $0.
....
It's exciting for SpaceX to have aggressive Starlink goals like >$30 billion in revenue by 2025, but being a service provider to consumers at global scale working with user equipment that can break and customers who churn isn't simple to automate. Up front SpaceX CAC won't be $0.
....
... Repair and troubleshooting in this case are provided by the same guy who installed the antenna. I think they follow this model for Tesla PowerWall installations.
.....
This *would* be somewhat different than their Powerwall policy, btw. As far as I know they do not allow DIY installs of their battery at all.
.....
This *would* be somewhat different than their Powerwall policy, btw. As far as I know they do not allow DIY installs of their battery at all.
That is quite a fair approach, taking the high voltage, and high cap battery stuff.
No similar, serious hazard factors for Starlink however. But to install radio equipment using licensed frequencies may require licensed personel in some countries, which imply B, and prohibit A for those areas.
Looks like this will be heaviest F9 payload to date:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1270469107465490432 (https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1270469107465490432)QuoteI asked SpaceX if launching Planet's 3 SkySat satellites meant the company would have to reduce the number Starlink satellites from 60 on each launch but it looks like there's room at the top of the stack (view from inside the Falcon 9 rocket nosecone):
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/09/planets-skysats-will-take-images-up-to-12-times-a-day-launched-with-help-of-spacex.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/09/planets-skysats-will-take-images-up-to-12-times-a-day-launched-with-help-of-spacex.html)
I don't know where you buy your equipment, but I've bought that setup for closer to $5,000. About half of it for that class amp and buc.For "business class" (100Mbps down and ???Mpbs up) CPE costs ~$20-60K+ based on their most recently accessible prices list (which use larger antennas and more sophisticated equipment).It`s depends from service
if we speak about broadband internet User Terminal from Hughes with 98 cm dish is less as 500 USD .
But for data transfer carrier class point to point ( symmetric channel 50... 100 Mbit ) you are right VSAT price 2,4 m dish + 16...50 W redundant amplifaier + modem with CnC option Price will in range 50000+ USD and more
FCC Clears Way for SpaceX to Vie for Rural Broadband Subsidies (https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/fcc-clears-way-for-spacex-to-vie-for-rural-broadband-subsidies)
FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly said he had proposed the language opening the way for satellite providers as a way to promote having more broadband providers taking part in the auction.
“We tried to finesse the language and modify it to remove some of the, I would call it, the prohibitions/harsh treatment of satellite services,” O’Rielly said.
“It’s still problematic. It’s not a technology-neutral approach. It’s better than it once was,” O’Rielly said. “Whether the satellite providers are able to take full advantage of it is unclear.”
The FCC didn’t immediately release the language that was inserted.
“We tried to finesse the language and modify it to remove some of the, I would call it, the prohibitions/harsh treatment of satellite services,” O’Rielly said.
“It’s still problematic. It’s not a technology-neutral approach. It’s better than it once was,” O’Rielly said. “Whether the satellite providers are able to take full advantage of it is unclear.”
The FCC didn’t immediately release the language that was inserted.
Interesting quote at the end of that linked article:As others such as @gongora have noted, Starlink is also at a lower TRL level than terrestrial providers. The goal here is to get Broadband for rural customers, so having a higher bar or only putting a few eggs in the satellite basket is totally reasonable. SpaceX will have a chance to compete, which is great, but yes it is going to be harder for them to get those funds, and that's okay. (It might still end up 'not okay' if the bar is unreasonably high, but we'll have to wait and see what the criteria are before judging that).Quote“We tried to finesse the language and modify it to remove some of the, I would call it, the prohibitions/harsh treatment of satellite services,” O’Rielly said.
“It’s still problematic. It’s not a technology-neutral approach. It’s better than it once was,” O’Rielly said. “Whether the satellite providers are able to take full advantage of it is unclear.”
The FCC didn’t immediately release the language that was inserted.
Sounds like there might still be restrictions/difficulties in getting funds for Starlink that the other participants might not have.
FCC Clears Way for SpaceX to Vie for Rural Broadband Subsidies (https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/fcc-clears-way-for-spacex-to-vie-for-rural-broadband-subsidies)
It appears that Pai blinked. From the article (https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/fcc-clears-way-for-spacex-to-vie-for-rural-broadband-subsidies):QuoteFCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly said he had proposed the language opening the way for satellite providers as a way to promote having more broadband providers taking part in the auction.
“We tried to finesse the language and modify it to remove some of the, I would call it, the prohibitions/harsh treatment of satellite services,” O’Rielly said.
“It’s still problematic. It’s not a technology-neutral approach. It’s better than it once was,” O’Rielly said. “Whether the satellite providers are able to take full advantage of it is unclear.”
The FCC didn’t immediately release the language that was inserted.
Normally direct from vendors, but if you know where we can order modems for 50..100 Mbits with CnC Licence for this speed It will be very useful for me.But for data transfer carrier class point to point ( symmetric channel 50... 100 Mbit ) you are right VSAT price 2,4 m dish + 16...50 W redundant amplifaier + modem with CnC option Price will in range 50000+ USD and moreI don't know where you buy your equipment, but I've bought that setup for closer to $5,000. About half of it for that class amp and buc.
Sorry, I missed the speed. Our operator had his own dynamic link margin scheme, so I'm not familiar with cnc.Normally direct from vendors, but if you know where we can order modems for 50..100 Mbits with CnC Licence for this speed It will be very useful for me.But for data transfer carrier class point to point ( symmetric channel 50... 100 Mbit ) you are right VSAT price 2,4 m dish + 16...50 W redundant amplifaier + modem with CnC option Price will in range 50000+ USD and moreI don't know where you buy your equipment, but I've bought that setup for closer to $5,000. About half of it for that class amp and buc.
If I look for second hand Comtech EFData CDM-625 Satellite Modem
112513622 5Mb, TPC/LDPC, 2.5 Mb CnC, 1.1 Mb VersaFEC, L-Band, HDR Comp., QOS, AES Encryption Price $4650
from https://satcomsolutions.org/product/comtech-cdm-625-satellite-modem/
And CnC here is only 2,5 Mbit (I wrote about 50..100 Mbits) for point to point
111. We will, however, permit applicants proposing to use a low earth orbit satellite network to apply to bid to offer low latency services based on the intrinsic advantages of low earth orbit satellites in providing lower latency services when compared to geosynchronous and medium earth orbit satellites. Namely, satellites in low earth orbit are not subject to the same propagation latency limitations as higherorbiting satellites.257 We are, however, unaware of any low earth orbit network capable of providing a mass market retail broadband service to residential consumers that could meet the Commission’s 100 ms round-trip latency requirements. In the absence of such a real-world performance example, Commission staff could not conclude at this time that such a short-form applicant is reasonably capable of meeting the Commission’s low latency requirements. We therefore have serious doubts that any low earth orbit networks will be able to meet the short-form application requirements for bidding in the low latency tier.
112. Service providers that intend to use low earth orbit satellites claim that the latency of their technology is “dictated by the laws of physics” due to the altitude of the satellite’s orbit.258 We remain skeptical that the altitude of a satellite’s orbit is the sole determinant of a satellite applicant’s ability to meet the Commission’s low latency performance requirements. As commenters have explained, the latency experienced by customers of a specific technology is not merely a matter of the physics of one link in the transmission.259 Propagation delay in a satellite network does not alone account for latency in
other parts of the network such as processing, routing, and transporting traffic to its destination.260 Shortform applicants seeking to bid as a low latency provider using low earth orbit satellite networks will face a substantial challenge demonstrating to Commission staff that their networks can deliver real-world performance to consumers below the Commission’s 100 ms low-latency threshold.
The revised language for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund sure sounds difficult for Starlink to clear. They will have to get on the ball to demonstrate low latency before the short-form deadline of July 15.Hmmm. All networks have issues affecting latency other than raw propagation speed. I'm trying to keep an evenhanded attitude on all this and am having a hard time believing that attitude is being met by the decision makers. The writer of the above openly admitted skepticism towards the ability of a LEO constellation to deliver sub 100ms latency.Quote111. We will, however, permit applicants proposing to use a low earth orbit satellite network to apply to bid to offer low latency services based on the intrinsic advantages of low earth orbit satellites in providing lower latency services when compared to geosynchronous and medium earth orbit satellites. Namely, satellites in low earth orbit are not subject to the same propagation latency limitations as higherorbiting satellites.257 We are, however, unaware of any low earth orbit network capable of providing a mass market retail broadband service to residential consumers that could meet the Commission’s 100 ms round-trip latency requirements. In the absence of such a real-world performance example, Commission staff could not conclude at this time that such a short-form applicant is reasonably capable of meeting the Commission’s low latency requirements. We therefore have serious doubts that any low earth orbit networks will be able to meet the short-form application requirements for bidding in the low latency tier.
112. Service providers that intend to use low earth orbit satellites claim that the latency of their technology is “dictated by the laws of physics” due to the altitude of the satellite’s orbit.258 We remain skeptical that the altitude of a satellite’s orbit is the sole determinant of a satellite applicant’s ability to meet the Commission’s low latency performance requirements. As commenters have explained, the latency experienced by customers of a specific technology is not merely a matter of the physics of one link in the transmission.259 Propagation delay in a satellite network does not alone account for latency in
other parts of the network such as processing, routing, and transporting traffic to its destination.260 Shortform applicants seeking to bid as a low latency provider using low earth orbit satellite networks will face a substantial challenge demonstrating to Commission staff that their networks can deliver real-world performance to consumers below the Commission’s 100 ms low-latency threshold.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-77A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-77A1.pdf)
There use to be software that would map out the path your connection took. Something like that would make it fun to compare physical length and latency on ground and Starlink connections.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceroute
*I'm not exactly up to date. I got started with PCs in 91 when the company bought me a broken Gridcase and a book of DOS commands. Copies of Norton disk utilities and Lounge Lizard Larry completed my toolkit*
Without the Starlink portion added to the software. You can calculate the Starlink transmission time (latency added to the path from the gateway). For the each of the delay items transmission time for a packet due to distance and amount of data to transmit complete packet at the AF discovered practical data rate of 800Mb up to and down from the sat. Plus the switch latency at the sat and the gateway. Then do a path chart from the gateway location (you will have to get a high bandwidth backbone service link in the area) to then find the path and Latency values.There use to be software that would map out the path your connection took. Something like that would make it fun to compare physical length and latency on ground and Starlink connections.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceroute
*I'm not exactly up to date. I got started with PCs in 91 when the company bought me a broken Gridcase and a book of DOS commands. Copies of Norton disk utilities and Lounge Lizard Larry completed my toolkit*
https://www.caida.org/tools/utilities/others/pathchar/
Looking up to the skies with open eyes!
Went to HQ and set up a Starlink terminal that connected to the satellites orbiting overhead. Simplest out-of-box experience imaginable.
Can't wait to upgrade my broadband later this year!
There use to be software that would map out the path your connection took. Something like that would make it fun to compare physical length and latency on ground and Starlink connections. If it could do a dynamic representation of the Starlink intersat links, I'd probably just sit and watch that all day.
*I'm not exactly up to date. I got started with PCs in 91 when the company bought me a broken Gridcase and a book of DOS commands. Copies of Norton disk utilities and Lounge Lizard Larry completed my toolkit*
https://twitter.com/futurejurvetson/status/1271512092957270016Question?QuoteLooking up to the skies with open eyes!
Went to HQ and set up a Starlink terminal that connected to the satellites orbiting overhead. Simplest out-of-box experience imaginable.
Can't wait to upgrade my broadband later this year!
You can now sign up for updates to find out when Starlink beta testing is available where you live.
https://www.starlink.com/
It doesnt say one should select any country. I assume this for the US only?
It doesnt say one should select any country. I assume this for the US only?I have successfully signed up, and I live in Denmark. I just entered my four-digit zipcode. I have no idea if it recognized my code as being non-american, but I did get a confirmation mail seconds after.
Did the same with a Canadian postal code (it did ask for ZIP or postal code, after all). Same response.It doesnt say one should select any country. I assume this for the US only?I have successfully signed up, and I live in Denmark. I just entered my four-digit zipcode. I have no idea if it recognized my code as being non-american, but I did get a confirmation mail seconds after.
Thank you for your interest in Starlink!Edit: include response e-mail.
Starlink is designed to deliver high speed broadband internet to locations where access has been unreliable, expensive, or completely unavailable. Private beta testing is expected to begin later this summer, followed by public beta testing, starting with higher latitudes.
If you provided us with your zip code, you will be notified via email if beta testing opportunities become available in your area. In the meantime, we will continue to share with you updates about general service availability and upcoming Starlink launches.
I wonder what the max latitude supported. Saw some suggestion that up to 60.5 N ... and Helsinki is 60.16 N.
Well, mostly theoretical musings. I have a gigabit fiber already. But if this were an option, would allow more flexibility when looking at future housing. Because, well, either there is a gigabit internet connection, or no deal :D
If I understand it correctly, without the inter-sat links, you have to be within range of a ground station? that makes use over oceans impossible until they start launching with sat to sat links.
Do I have that right?
The revised language for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund sure sounds difficult for Starlink to clear. They will have to get on the ball to demonstrate low latency before the short-form deadline of July 15.Quote111. We will, however, permit applicants proposing to use a low earth orbit satellite network to apply to bid to offer low latency services based on the intrinsic advantages of low earth orbit satellites in providing lower latency services when compared to geosynchronous and medium earth orbit satellites. Namely, satellites in low earth orbit are not subject to the same propagation latency limitations as higherorbiting satellites.257 We are, however, unaware of any low earth orbit network capable of providing a mass market retail broadband service to residential consumers that could meet the Commission’s 100 ms round-trip latency requirements. In the absence of such a real-world performance example, Commission staff could not conclude at this time that such a short-form applicant is reasonably capable of meeting the Commission’s low latency requirements. We therefore have serious doubts that any low earth orbit networks will be able to meet the short-form application requirements for bidding in the low latency tier.
112. Service providers that intend to use low earth orbit satellites claim that the latency of their technology is “dictated by the laws of physics” due to the altitude of the satellite’s orbit.258 We remain skeptical that the altitude of a satellite’s orbit is the sole determinant of a satellite applicant’s ability to meet the Commission’s low latency performance requirements. As commenters have explained, the latency experienced by customers of a specific technology is not merely a matter of the physics of one link in the transmission.259 Propagation delay in a satellite network does not alone account for latency in other parts of the network such as processing, routing, and transporting traffic to its destination.260 Shortform applicants seeking to bid as a low latency provider using low earth orbit satellite networks will face a substantial challenge demonstrating to Commission staff that their networks can deliver real-world performance to consumers below the Commission’s 100 ms low-latency threshold.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-77A1.pdf
4. Network Performance:
e. For fixed broadband wireless access and satellite networks, describe how the proposed frequency band(s) and technology attributes, for both last mile and backhaul, will achieve the performance tier(s)3 and latency requirements to all locations for both broadband and voice services. Specifically, describe how the planned frequency bands, base station configuration, including, for example, point-to-point, point-to-multipoint or mesh architectures, and customer premise equipment (CPE), channel bandwidths minimal requirements,4 traffic assumptions,5 and propagation assumptions,6 and calculations yield sufficient capacity to all the planned locations.
Footnotes (all new):
3 All the performance tiers have both downstream and upstream speed requirements. An applicant must demonstrate how the requirements for both the downstream and upstream speeds could be met.
4 Channel bandwidths minimal requirements must be provided for both base station or access point and CPE and their pertinent technology and protocols.
5 Traffic assumptions must include peak hour(s), network loading, oversubscription ratio, estimated maximum number of subscribers, and monthly usage per subscriber.
6 For example, provide specific assumptions pertinent to planned frequency bands including, but not limited to, allowable path distances, availability, and propagation loss categories, such as foliage and rain. For base station (access point) coverage, provide information on the treatment of forward path, reverse path, and non-line of sight scenarios.
8. Satellite Networks: If the applicant is using satellite technologies, identify which satellites would be used, and describe concisely the total satellite capacity available, that is, capacity that is not currently in use for existing subscribers. In addition, describe how the proposed network will achieve the performance tier(s) and latency requirements to all planned locations in a massmarket consumer service.
I thought that would be an easy way to do it, but the more I think about the details, the less sure I am. Near the equator in the early days, there won't bee a lot of satellites visible and combined with the difficulty of mounting two antennas with no blockages down to 25 degrees on most ships, having a second sat in view in sort of the right direction and the investment needed for a system that might only be needed for a year, I'm betting against it.If I understand it correctly, without the inter-sat links, you have to be within range of a ground station? that makes use over oceans impossible until they start launching with sat to sat links.
Do I have that right?
It's possible to provide service by putting a ground station on a ship or platform. That ground station could bounce the signal back up to another satellite closer to land. Not ideal, but possible.
I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but for my Canadian colleagues, SpaceX has an application into the CRTC for StarLink. You can submit a statement in support of this at (hopefully this link works correctly): ...
I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but for my Canadian colleagues, SpaceX has an application into the CRTC for StarLink. You can submit a statement in support of this at (hopefully this link works correctly):
https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/CommentForm/Default-Defaut.aspx?lang=e&EN=202002799&ET=B&S=O&PA=T&PT=A&PST=A&FN=
Tick the "I have read and understand blah blah" at the bottom of the first page and you should get into the form.
Where is starlink 1 2 5 and 6? Are they okay?
yes... They are still in boot-up and satellite acquisition mode. Each of these is a separate user terminal/dish that the board plugged in at roughly the same time (seeing who could get connected first ;-)
A small (but significant) update on the Starlink website: Prospective users can now select from a country drop down list. (A quick scan shows that China & Saudi Arabia are included, while North Korea and Iran are not)
Around 20ms. It’s designed to run real-time, competitive video games. Version 2, which is at lower altitude could be as low as 8ms latency.
I just received an e-mail from Starlink (yes Starlink not SpaceX) requesting my actual street address for possible participation in their Private Beta.I received the email too. Wasn't very hopeful as I am in AZ, and they are most interested in more Northerly states,but maybe I have a chance?
They are still waiting for approval from the CRTC.
I also posted this in another thread:
I updated my address this morning. Just for fun, I tried logging in with my email address and when it rejected the login, I hit the forgot password button, but never got an email with the reset password. Make sense because I have not been given the opportunity to actually create a login account yet, but I had to try :) .
Since I am in somewhat rural New Hampshire, I am hoping my address will be an attractive one for the beta testing. I do have access to and currently use a high speed internet connection via Spectrum cable, but hopefully that won't matter.
I Wondered if everyone is getting emails. I got an email and I live in Hampshire UK
I Wondered if everyone is getting emails. I got an email and I live in Hampshire UK
I’m fairly sure everybody is, I’m in Lancashire, UK and got it too.
It’s probably just an exercise to help fill out a new field in their database of interest, especially since previously it was just postal/zip codes which without knowing the country can be a bit useless.
I also posted this in another thread:
I updated my address this morning. Just for fun, I tried logging in with my email address and when it rejected the login, I hit the forgot password button, but never got an email with the reset password. Make sense because I have not been given the opportunity to actually create a login account yet, but I had to try :) .
Since I am in somewhat rural New Hampshire, I am hoping my address will be an attractive one for the beta testing. I do have access to and currently use a high speed internet connection via Spectrum cable, but hopefully that won't matter.
I got the email also. I am also in NH but the seacoast NH which has good broadband with comcast.
I just received an e-mail from Starlink (yes Starlink not SpaceX) requesting my actual street address for possible participation in their Private Beta.I received the email too. Wasn't very hopeful as I am in AZ, and they are most interested in more Northerly states,but maybe I have a chance?
They are still waiting for approval from the CRTC.
[Added: The from address is [email protected], but I note that the server it was sent from is an address in the spacex.com domain]
I just received an e-mail from Starlink (yes Starlink not SpaceX) requesting my actual street address for possible participation in their Private Beta.I received the email too. Wasn't very hopeful as I am in AZ, and they are most interested in more Northerly states,but maybe I have a chance?
They are still waiting for approval from the CRTC.
[Added: The from address is [email protected], but I note that the server it was sent from is an address in the spacex.com domain]
There are several posts related to this email. I am just quoting the first one, or apparently two, to provide context.
I looked at the address from which it was sent and it is "[email protected]". Seems strange. I have not yet clicked on the update information. Thought
I would check here first.
Then I also saw that was apparently sent "via sendgrid.net".
Then I went to a search engine and asked who is sendgrid.net.
This seems to be affiliated with "godaddy".
Then someone mentioned that they could not log in.
Question for those who tried to update: Where does that step take a person and/or what happens? Apparently they ask for an address but is that info
then sent by email or to whom? is the person at the starlink.com website? is the https: shown in the url?
Anyways, at the moment I am puzzled by not having all the pieces fall into place as well as it seems to me that they should and that I have questions..
Thanks in advance for sharing your perspective
The link in the e-mail is not a starlink domain, as you say. But it redirects to a starlink.com page. The page is pre-populated with your e-mail address. There are fields for your physical address.
No login needed. Maybe there's a code in the URL. Or maybe they just don't think it matters if someone else tries to specify an address for your e-mail.
The redirect is probably so they can use a third party (probably the same third party that sent the e-mail) to track click-through rates on the e-mail.
Also strange (at least to me), on this forum the thread subject line changet at message #1667 fromThat happens when another threads posts gets added to the end of an open thread.
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
to
Re: SpaceX Now Taking Street Address for their Starlink Beta
I guess I could see (maybe) establishing a new thread but dropping the General Discussion does not compute in my mind. Maybe I need to hit the reset button
or re-install the software between my ears.
Nothing showing up in Kansas.
Code on SpaceX's Starlink website contains the first official photos of Elon Musk's 'UFO on a stick' — and key details about the satellite-internet project's test program
Dave Mosher 6 hours ago
SpaceX has launched hundreds of internet-beaming Starlink satellites into orbit since 2019.
On Tuesday, a college student tweeted the first official SpaceX photos of user terminals, or satellite dishes to connect subscribers to the web.
SpaceX's founder, Elon Musk, who's described the terminal as a "UFO on a stick," confirmed their authenticity as SpaceX works to start a private beta test of the internet service this summer.
Business Insider reviewed Starlink's website's public source code and found what looks like numerous details about the beta program.
Beta users may have to pay only $1 for a Starlink user terminal and internet service, but they also may need to install the devices themselves — and not talk publicly about their participation in the test program.
Got the email to input my Kansas address this morning.You can't assume Beta testers react like normal people.
Gotta wonder. So much interest in a beta they can't get them all out in one day? They don't advertise. What type of feeding frenzy will they face when it goes live?
I have a technical question. My roof is structural foam panels. Two sheets of particle board with foam insulation in between. No joists. Shingles on top probably using normal roofing nails at normal intervals. What are the chances the signal would make it to an interior dish?
Phil
Got the email to input my Kansas address this morning.You can't assume Beta testers react like normal people.
Gotta wonder. So much interest in a beta they can't get them all out in one day? They don't advertise. What type of feeding frenzy will they face when it goes live?
I have a technical question. My roof is structural foam panels. Two sheets of particle board with foam insulation in between. No joists. Shingles on top probably using normal roofing nails at normal intervals. What are the chances the signal would make it to an interior dish?
Phil
<snip>
I am one frickin' degree south of the test area, live in a populated area, but I would love to observe and report on this project. Would be like having a strange new pet to figure out.
What's the deal about "50 pounds of ballast" for a couple of the mounts?
I'm no weakling but...
What's the deal about "50 pounds of ballast" for a couple of the mounts?I believe this is what we are seeing in pictures like this one.
I'm no weakling but...
Hi guys, incredibly new to the Starlink thread (practically a Starship board-only guy.)
Does anybody know what the total power requirements of the Starlink setup are? I figure now that people are beta testing, they might have some answers as to the voltage and current of the power supplies that come out of the box.
I keep having this fantasy of having a home-built high temperature stirling engine-powered generator that you pressurize with a bike pump, light a campfire under, and then get wifi in the middle of absolutely nowhere.
The highest power standard is IEEE 802.3bt type 4. ...FCC filings show POE [email protected] = 16.8W, so expect 802.3at (POE+) 25.5W is sufficient.
Five ten pound bags of ballast with no fasteners needed seems like a good solution for the mechanically challenged. Though shipping ballast is a bummer.I can buy 50kb bag of sand for $5. They don't have to ship it. Just include a $5 Home Despot gift card.
Morgan Stanley's "State of the LEO Race" report is mostly background info, but this chart says something new (to me at least). They say Starlink will at best compete with Viasat's 3yo ViaSat-2 satellite (260 Gbps) on price, and won't come close to ViaSat-3 (1 Tbps per GEO sat).It says based on the initial 12k satellites costing $20B, but i don't think that's accurate. SpaceX says each Starlink launch is $30m, but the actual satellite hardware is even less than that... So, at best it'd be $10B. Besides, they're continually updating Starlink... They claim the marginal launch cost is just $15m. Plus doesn't really make sense to compare current gen per-Starlink-bandwidth to a satellite that won't even be available until late 2021 or 2022. (Consider the big jump in per-satellite-bandwidth from Starlink v0.9 to v1.0.)
https://twitter.com/CHenry_SN/status/1285294301153558529
SpaceX Starlink from Elon Musk has promised to offer 100Mbit/s downloads nationwide, with latency of roughly 30mn. But given the number of unknowns surrounding the LEO provider, ISPs probably don't need to worry just yet.On the contrary, it's the unknowns that should cause ISPs to worry. If you wait until your competitor has outcompeted you to plan and act, it's too late.
https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1285233279948521472
Morgan Stanley's "State of the LEO Race" report puts Amazon's Kuiper in the lead for funding and SpaceX's Starlink in the lead for launch. Kepler, an IoT system, is strangely included in this assessment of mega-broadband plays.
https://twitter.com/CHenry_SN/status/1285281395888267264
Morgan Stanley's "State of the LEO Race" report is mostly background info, but this chart says something new (to me at least). They say Starlink will at best compete with Viasat's 3yo ViaSat-2 satellite (260 Gbps) on price, and won't come close to ViaSat-3 (1 Tbps per GEO sat).It says based on the initial 12k satellites costing $20B, but i don't think that's accurate. SpaceX says each Starlink launch is $30m, but the actual satellite hardware is even less than that... So, at best it'd be $10B. Besides, they're continually updating Starlink... They claim the marginal launch cost is just $15m. Plus doesn't really make sense to compare current gen per-Starlink-bandwidth to a satellite that won't even be available until late 2021 or 2022. (Consider the big jump in per-satellite-bandwidth from Starlink v0.9 to v1.0.)
https://twitter.com/CHenry_SN/status/1285294301153558529
(and, of course, GSO satellite internet ALSO needs a terminal that usually is installed by a professional, so I don't think mentioning terminals is a big advantage to GSO satellites at all!)
Extremely questionable forecasts/analysis/reports on space topics by financial analysts come out every day, and most of them are so bad they're really not even worth getting riled up about.Reporters seem to be taking it seriously. For some reason.
Extremely questionable forecasts/analysis/reports on space topics by financial analysts come out every day, and most of them are so bad they're really not even worth getting riled up about.Reporters seem to be taking it seriously. For some reason.
And for what it's worth, it's not totally insane that a next-gen 2021/2022 Viasat bird could compete bit-for-bit with the 2019-vintage Starlink, since Starlink spends much of its time not over its service area. But... That's being pretty generous to Viasat. I'd much rather have responsive internet than more bandwidth, and Starlink is rapidly improving in performance while reuse and hardware costs continue to reduce price-per-bit.
I agree. I was being generous.Extremely questionable forecasts/analysis/reports on space topics by financial analysts come out every day, and most of them are so bad they're really not even worth getting riled up about.Reporters seem to be taking it seriously. For some reason.
And for what it's worth, it's not totally insane that a next-gen 2021/2022 Viasat bird could compete bit-for-bit with the 2019-vintage Starlink, since Starlink spends much of its time not over its service area. But... That's being pretty generous to Viasat. I'd much rather have responsive internet than more bandwidth, and Starlink is rapidly improving in performance while reuse and hardware costs continue to reduce price-per-bit.
I don't think it will be practical to compare a 2021/2022 Viasat to a 2019 Starlink because SpaceX intends to iterate Starlink rapidly compared to traditional satellite deployments.
SpaceX Starlink from Elon Musk has promised to offer 100Mbit/s downloads nationwide, with latency of roughly 30mn. But given the number of unknowns surrounding the LEO provider, ISPs probably don't need to worry just yet.I couldn't really see reading past the point where he implied Elon was exaggerating the ease of install because he didn't mention that you'd have to attach the antenna to something. Most articles don't magically change from garbage to informative half way through.
https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1285233279948521472
Even garbage is informative in its own way.SpaceX Starlink from Elon Musk has promised to offer 100Mbit/s downloads nationwide, with latency of roughly 30mn. But given the number of unknowns surrounding the LEO provider, ISPs probably don't need to worry just yet.I couldn't really see reading past the point where he implied Elon was exaggerating the ease of install because he didn't mention that you'd have to attach the antenna to something. Most articles don't magically change from garbage to informative half way through.
https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1285233279948521472 (https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1285233279948521472)
Hofeller's comments make it sound like interconnects are a lot further away than I had thought. It sounds like they are still doing basic development and working out whether it's even feasible.
Hofeller's comments make it sound like interconnects are a lot further away than I had thought. It sounds like they are still doing basic development and working out whether it's even feasible.
I didn't read the comments in the article that way.
Saying they "have to make sure it's cost effective" implies to me that they know they can do it and that they're now focusing on cost reduction. The fact that he uses the word "aggressively" means that they are focusing on it as a high priority. That doesn't sound like something they don't think is feasible. That sound like something they are confident is feasible and they're now putting lots of effort into doing.
Hofeller's comments make it sound like interconnects are a lot further away than I had thought. It sounds like they are still doing basic development and working out whether it's even feasible.
I didn't read the comments in the article that way.
Saying they "have to make sure it's cost effective" implies to me that they know they can do it and that they're now focusing on cost reduction. The fact that he uses the word "aggressively" means that they are focusing on it as a high priority. That doesn't sound like something they don't think is feasible. That sound like something they are confident is feasible and they're now putting lots of effort into doing.
I agree, it sounds like something that they can do but for more $ than they want. They'll get there. They are essential to a global footprint, they need this.
I'm waiting to hear about some test satellites to be included in a launch.
We are in v1.0 still. Who knows what version we will be in a few years from now and how many are being built and deployed using Starship.
Hofeller's comments make it sound like interconnects are a lot further away than I had thought. It sounds like they are still doing basic development and working out whether it's even feasible.
I didn't read the comments in the article that way.
Saying they "have to make sure it's cost effective" implies to me that they know they can do it and that they're now focusing on cost reduction. The fact that he uses the word "aggressively" means that they are focusing on it as a high priority. That doesn't sound like something they don't think is feasible. That sound like something they are confident is feasible and they're now putting lots of effort into doing.
I agree, it sounds like something that they can do but for more $ than they want. They'll get there. They are essential to a global footprint, they need this.
I'm waiting to hear about some test satellites to be included in a launch.
We are in v1.0 still. Who knows what version we will be in a few years from now and how many are being built and deployed using Starship.
I think it was the reasons why Starlink mng team was reshuffled in 2018. Basically they wanted to delay the launches until the interlinks were ready, Elon however pushed for launching asap even if lacking features.
Do you have info on this or are you speculating?Hofeller's comments make it sound like interconnects are a lot further away than I had thought. It sounds like they are still doing basic development and working out whether it's even feasible.
I didn't read the comments in the article that way.
Saying they "have to make sure it's cost effective" implies to me that they know they can do it and that they're now focusing on cost reduction. The fact that he uses the word "aggressively" means that they are focusing on it as a high priority. That doesn't sound like something they don't think is feasible. That sound like something they are confident is feasible and they're now putting lots of effort into doing.
I agree, it sounds like something that they can do but for more $ than they want. They'll get there. They are essential to a global footprint, they need this.
I'm waiting to hear about some test satellites to be included in a launch.
We are in v1.0 still. Who knows what version we will be in a few years from now and how many are being built and deployed using Starship.
I think it was the reasons why Starlink mng team was reshuffled in 2018. Basically they wanted to delay the launches until the interlinks were ready, Elon however pushed for launching asap even if lacking features.
Do you have info on this or are you speculating?I agree, it sounds like something that they can do but for more $ than they want. They'll get there. They are essential to a global footprint, they need this.
I'm waiting to hear about some test satellites to be included in a launch.
We are in v1.0 still. Who knows what version we will be in a few years from now and how many are being built and deployed using Starship.
I think it was the reasons why Starlink mng team was reshuffled in 2018. Basically they wanted to delay the launches until the interlinks were ready, Elon however pushed for launching asap even if lacking features.
Phil
Citation? From what I remember of the time the word was they just wanted to do a couple more prototype test satellites and Musk wanted to start launching and iterate on the go.
People are allowed to think without it being pure guesswork. Some actually have reasons for what they believe.Citation? From what I remember of the time the word was they just wanted to do a couple more prototype test satellites and Musk wanted to start launching and iterate on the go.
When a person says "I think", it is speculation.
Agreed. There's always a line between what we think and what we know. I was just trying to find out where the line was.People are allowed to think without it being pure guesswork. Some actually have reasons for what they believe.Citation? From what I remember of the time the word was they just wanted to do a couple more prototype test satellites and Musk wanted to start launching and iterate on the go.
When a person says "I think", it is speculation.
ISLs don't just allow increase in revenue but decrease in costs as you don't need as many ground stations or interconnection fees.
But I do suspect significant increase in revenue. With ISLs, you can now serve customers far away from any ground stations.
Their primary customer is consumers and businesses. The US govt will be a minority of Starlink business, even if they appear to be somewhat of an early anchor customer.ISLs don't just allow increase in revenue but decrease in costs as you don't need as many ground stations or interconnection fees.
But I do suspect significant increase in revenue. With ISLs, you can now serve customers far away from any ground stations.
Especially since their primary customer wants truly global coverage, and putting together that ground station network would be a LOT of work.
Their primary customer is consumers and businesses. The US govt will be a minority of Starlink business, even if they appear to be somewhat of an early anchor customer.ISLs don't just allow increase in revenue but decrease in costs as you don't need as many ground stations or interconnection fees.
But I do suspect significant increase in revenue. With ISLs, you can now serve customers far away from any ground stations.
Especially since their primary customer wants truly global coverage, and putting together that ground station network would be a LOT of work.
I know it’s hard to imagine, but consumers and businesses have a LOT more money to spend on this than the US DoD does. The DoD has like a couple billion at most to spend on stuff like Starlink. Comcast’s revenue was >$100 billion last year.
I’m not. Just pointing out the scale of consumer and business spending is FAR greater than military spending. That’s the real nut.Their primary customer is consumers and businesses. The US govt will be a minority of Starlink business, even if they appear to be somewhat of an early anchor customer.ISLs don't just allow increase in revenue but decrease in costs as you don't need as many ground stations or interconnection fees.
But I do suspect significant increase in revenue. With ISLs, you can now serve customers far away from any ground stations.
Especially since their primary customer wants truly global coverage, and putting together that ground station network would be a LOT of work.
I know it’s hard to imagine, but consumers and businesses have a LOT more money to spend on this than the US DoD does. The DoD has like a couple billion at most to spend on stuff like Starlink. Comcast’s revenue was >$100 billion last year.
Those consumers and businesses are clustered in cities where Starlink's value proposition is a lot lower. Don't overestimate how much of Comcast's business they're going to capture in the next decade.
I’m not. Just pointing out the scale of consumer and business spending is FAR greater than military spending. That’s the real nut.Their primary customer is consumers and businesses. The US govt will be a minority of Starlink business, even if they appear to be somewhat of an early anchor customer.ISLs don't just allow increase in revenue but decrease in costs as you don't need as many ground stations or interconnection fees.
But I do suspect significant increase in revenue. With ISLs, you can now serve customers far away from any ground stations.
Especially since their primary customer wants truly global coverage, and putting together that ground station network would be a LOT of work.
I know it’s hard to imagine, but consumers and businesses have a LOT more money to spend on this than the US DoD does. The DoD has like a couple billion at most to spend on stuff like Starlink. Comcast’s revenue was >$100 billion last year.
Those consumers and businesses are clustered in cities where Starlink's value proposition is a lot lower. Don't overestimate how much of Comcast's business they're going to capture in the next decade.
Keep in mind Comcast is just one business among several... there’s AT&T (market cap $209B), Verizon (market cap $235B), and foreign telecoms. Starlink can compete with all of them (altho at first only with their fixed, non-mobile services) to the extent that their constellation has enough capacity. Maybe they can get 5-10% in cities, but a lot more in rural areas. And not just in the US but globally.
The US military’s telecoms budget is small potatoes and does not drive SpaceX/Starlink’s valuation except as a risk-reducing anchor customer.
Disagree. Low latency services is still a small part of their total revenue. Backbone companies are MUCH smaller than you’d think. Cogent Communications, one of the biggest internet backbone providers, has a market cap of just $4 billion, 50 times smaller than Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T. Even a smaller regional player like Cox communications has a market cap 5 times that size. Consumers are where the real money is.I’m not. Just pointing out the scale of consumer and business spending is FAR greater than military spending. That’s the real nut.Their primary customer is consumers and businesses. The US govt will be a minority of Starlink business, even if they appear to be somewhat of an early anchor customer.ISLs don't just allow increase in revenue but decrease in costs as you don't need as many ground stations or interconnection fees.
But I do suspect significant increase in revenue. With ISLs, you can now serve customers far away from any ground stations.
Especially since their primary customer wants truly global coverage, and putting together that ground station network would be a LOT of work.
I know it’s hard to imagine, but consumers and businesses have a LOT more money to spend on this than the US DoD does. The DoD has like a couple billion at most to spend on stuff like Starlink. Comcast’s revenue was >$100 billion last year.
Those consumers and businesses are clustered in cities where Starlink's value proposition is a lot lower. Don't overestimate how much of Comcast's business they're going to capture in the next decade.
Keep in mind Comcast is just one business among several... there’s AT&T (market cap $209B), Verizon (market cap $235B), and foreign telecoms. Starlink can compete with all of them (altho at first only with their fixed, non-mobile services) to the extent that their constellation has enough capacity. Maybe they can get 5-10% in cities, but a lot more in rural areas. And not just in the US but globally.
The US military’s telecoms budget is small potatoes and does not drive SpaceX/Starlink’s valuation except as a risk-reducing anchor customer.
Oh absolutely.
I see the Military as the initial customer to get the network to its full strength. Once that gets set up I see the military keeping the same small footprint, but the majority of the service will be used as an invisible backbone for low latency applications
I think the laser ISL are just waiting for them to reach the performance, price, and manufacturability points they want on that assembly. They'll need to make thousands of them a year.
Starlink has been more under-wraps than most SpaceX activities.
Disagree. Low latency services is still a small part of their total revenue. Backbone companies are MUCH smaller than you’d think. Cogent Communications, one of the biggest internet backbone providers, has a market cap of just $4 billion, 50 times smaller than Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T. Even a smaller regional player like Cox communications has a market cap 5 times that size. Consumers are where the real money is.I’m not. Just pointing out the scale of consumer and business spending is FAR greater than military spending. That’s the real nut.Their primary customer is consumers and businesses. The US govt will be a minority of Starlink business, even if they appear to be somewhat of an early anchor customer.ISLs don't just allow increase in revenue but decrease in costs as you don't need as many ground stations or interconnection fees.
But I do suspect significant increase in revenue. With ISLs, you can now serve customers far away from any ground stations.
Especially since their primary customer wants truly global coverage, and putting together that ground station network would be a LOT of work.
I know it’s hard to imagine, but consumers and businesses have a LOT more money to spend on this than the US DoD does. The DoD has like a couple billion at most to spend on stuff like Starlink. Comcast’s revenue was >$100 billion last year.
Those consumers and businesses are clustered in cities where Starlink's value proposition is a lot lower. Don't overestimate how much of Comcast's business they're going to capture in the next decade.
Keep in mind Comcast is just one business among several... there’s AT&T (market cap $209B), Verizon (market cap $235B), and foreign telecoms. Starlink can compete with all of them (altho at first only with their fixed, non-mobile services) to the extent that their constellation has enough capacity. Maybe they can get 5-10% in cities, but a lot more in rural areas. And not just in the US but globally.
The US military’s telecoms budget is small potatoes and does not drive SpaceX/Starlink’s valuation except as a risk-reducing anchor customer.
Oh absolutely.
I see the Military as the initial customer to get the network to its full strength. Once that gets set up I see the military keeping the same small footprint, but the majority of the service will be used as an invisible backbone for low latency applications
If we look at the majority of past technologies, the army first tested it before it was released to the public.
If we look at the majority of past technologies, the army first tested it before it was released to the public.
I don't think that's true at all. Some technologies were first used by the military, but the vast majority of technologies I can think of were not.
There are a lot of little invisible bits of tech (mostly electronics)buried in our beloved stuff that either started with the military or matured there. A trend that started post WW2. Phased array, spread spectrum, GPS, radar, even computers and overhead valve V engines.If we look at the majority of past technologies, the army first tested it before it was released to the public.
I don't think that's true at all. Some technologies were first used by the military, but the vast majority of technologies I can think of were not.
There are a lot of little invisible bits of tech (mostly electronics)buried in our beloved stuff that either started with the military or matured there. A trend that started post WW2. Phased array, spread spectrum, GPS, radar, even computers and overhead valve V engines.If we look at the majority of past technologies, the army first tested it before it was released to the public.
I don't think that's true at all. Some technologies were first used by the military, but the vast majority of technologies I can think of were not.
lSpaceX told the FCC in a late July presentation that the company’s Starlink unit is “now building 120 satellites per month” and has “invested over $70 million developing and producing thousands of consumer user terminals per month.”
If we look at the majority of past technologies, the army first tested it before it was released to the public.
I don't think that's true at all. Some technologies were first used by the military, but the vast majority of technologies I can think of were not.
Agreed, especially in the recent tech age. The venture capital system in the US is ahead of DOD on alot of fronts.
Only one data point but from a very experienced observer: the 1st #Starlink of the VisorSat type (as https://t.co/seZL1j7zdT explains) is on station now - and dimmer by several magnitudes: http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2020/0044.html. Should mean that all future Starlinks become invisible to the eye.
https://twitter.com/cosmos4u/status/1292661826866610177QuoteOnly one data point but from a very experienced observer: the 1st #Starlink of the VisorSat type (as https://t.co/seZL1j7zdT explains) is on station now - and dimmer by several magnitudes: http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2020/0044.html. Should mean that all future Starlinks become invisible to the eye.
A star of 6.7 magnitude was also visible in the observation. Putting the satellite right at the edge of human eyesight.It said the satellite was not seen even with binoculars when the 6.7 magnitude star was seen. From this information, you can only say what the satellite was dimmer than, not what it's actual brightness was. Being dimmer than 7 magnitude is not the "edge" of human eyesight from anything I have heard, it is solidly below human eyesight.
A star of 6.7 magnitude was also visible in the observation. Putting the satellite right at the edge of human eyesight.It said the satellite was not seen even with binoculars when the 6.7 magnitude star was seen. From this information, you can only say what the satellite was dimmer than, not what it's actual brightness was. Being dimmer than 7 magnitude is not the "edge" of human eyesight from anything I have heard, it is solidly below human eyesight.
Thirtyone posted a link mentioning other observations, but I don't know how to parse meaningful info from that set of data.
Company officials said service will be offered in northern portions of the United States and Canada after 12 satellite fleet deployments, which would increase the size of the constellation to almost 800 satellites
How does 648 plus one more deployment equal "almost 800"? Not that she should have counted the V.9s anyhow.QuoteCompany officials said service will be offered in northern portions of the United States and Canada after 12 satellite fleet deployments, which would increase the size of the constellation to almost 800 satellites
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-sats (https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-sats)
How does 648 plus one more deployment equal "almost 800"? Not that she should have counted the V.9s anyhow.QuoteCompany officials said service will be offered in northern portions of the United States and Canada after 12 satellite fleet deployments, which would increase the size of the constellation to almost 800 satellites
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-sats (https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-sats)
Ugh, L10 is the 10th V1.0 launch meaning just less than <600 operational V1.0 sats on orbit. Plus <60 V0.9 sats on orbit.How does 648 plus one more deployment equal "almost 800"? Not that she should have counted the V.9s anyhow.QuoteCompany officials said service will be offered in northern portions of the United States and Canada after 12 satellite fleet deployments, which would increase the size of the constellation to almost 800 satellites
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-sats (https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-sats)
Well, it's more than 700!
Well its only one further launch from about 768, which rounds to 800! and that extra 60 would only be a couple of weeks more, so its "almost" in 2 ways, in fact with yet another additional launch it would be about 828, so thats a 3rd reason to be almost there (since 828 rounds to 800) and since that again is likely another two(ish) weeks, that means that is almost achieved.How does 648 plus one more deployment equal "almost 800"? Not that she should have counted the V.9s anyhow.QuoteCompany officials said service will be offered in northern portions of the United States and Canada after 12 satellite fleet deployments, which would increase the size of the constellation to almost 800 satellites
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-sats (https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-sats)
Are the v0.9's even operational? I recall reading that they didn't have couldn't provide the service or throughput of the v1.0's and that they wouldn't really be part of the constellation.
Are they just flying the v0.9's to test and characterize the hardware?
Last time we had observation of Gateway sites they had Ku UTs so there is always a capability to use the V0.9 sats if necessary. It is just that in three+ more launches it will not be necessary ever again. 2 to get to the 768 value and then 1 more to replace the V0.9 sats to be at the >750 value for V1.0 sats. Then one more and everything we are quibbling over now will be mute. Timeline for 4 more launches is possibly before end of October or possibly even early October. <60 days from now.Are the v0.9's even operational? I recall reading that they didn't have couldn't provide the service or throughput of the v1.0's and that they wouldn't really be part of the constellation.
Are they just flying the v0.9's to test and characterize the hardware?
v0.9 are test sats, not part of the constellation. They don't have the Ka-band payload to communicate with the gateways.
Company officials said service will be offered in northern portions of the United States and Canada after 12 satellite fleet deployments,
All this discussion about how many is 800 is interesting, but I thought the more interesting part was:That seems easy* to me, that would be 12 v1.0 launches = 36 planes with (almost) 20 satellites per plane. Current satellite deployment is such that if everything on orbit finished raising, there would be a gap of 3 planes, a gap of 2 planes and a gap of 1 plane. This implies 1 extra launch required to get to the right positions quickly for 13 launches. Then launching in order from 3 plane gap to 2 plane to 1 plane, to minimize drifting time before a set of 36 equal spaced planes is complete. If launches happen quick enough, the last plane worth from L11 can have its spot taken by L14 satellites, while the remaining L11 either stop drifting half a plane early to start the next level of plane density, or be used to start filling in planes to the final plan of a full 22 satellites per plane.QuoteCompany officials said service will be offered in northern portions of the United States and Canada after 12 satellite fleet deployments,
Now that should give us something more interesting to quibble about! How many are 12?
All this discussion about how many is 800 is interesting, but I thought the more interesting part was:That seems easy* to me, that would be 12 v1.0 launches = 36 planes with (almost) 20 satellites per plane. Current satellite deployment is such that if everything on orbit finished raising, there would be a gap of 3 planes, a gap of 2 planes and a gap of 1 plane. This implies 1 extra launch required to get to the right positions quickly for 13 launches. Then launching in order from 3 plane gap to 2 plane to 1 plane, to minimize drifting time before a set of 36 equal spaced planes is complete. If launches happen quick enough, the last plane worth from L11 can have its spot taken by L14 satellites, while the remaining L11 either stop drifting half a plane early to start the next level of plane density, or be used to start filling in planes to the final plan of a full 22 satellites per plane.QuoteCompany officials said service will be offered in northern portions of the United States and Canada after 12 satellite fleet deployments,
Now that should give us something more interesting to quibble about! How many are 12?
In conclusion 12 launch groups = 13-14 launches = 36 planes.
* in case anyone missed it this "easy" is slightly sarcastic, given all of the slightly strange steps such as 12 launches = 13 launches
Whaaat? Never heard of a bakers dozen?All this discussion about how many is 800 is interesting, but I thought the more interesting part was:That seems easy* to me, that would be 12 v1.0 launches = 36 planes with (almost) 20 satellites per plane. Current satellite deployment is such that if everything on orbit finished raising, there would be a gap of 3 planes, a gap of 2 planes and a gap of 1 plane. This implies 1 extra launch required to get to the right positions quickly for 13 launches. Then launching in order from 3 plane gap to 2 plane to 1 plane, to minimize drifting time before a set of 36 equal spaced planes is complete. If launches happen quick enough, the last plane worth from L11 can have its spot taken by L14 satellites, while the remaining L11 either stop drifting half a plane early to start the next level of plane density, or be used to start filling in planes to the final plan of a full 22 satellites per plane.QuoteCompany officials said service will be offered in northern portions of the United States and Canada after 12 satellite fleet deployments,
Now that should give us something more interesting to quibble about! How many are 12?
In conclusion 12 launch groups = 13-14 launches = 36 planes.
* in case anyone missed it this "easy" is slightly sarcastic, given all of the slightly strange steps such as 12 launches = 13 launches
When they get all of the initial deployment (~1400 satellites) done then they'll have coverage from a bit under 60 degrees latitude down to the equator, which SpaceX often calls "global" coverage. It obviously isn't global, but covers most of the population of the world. To get coverage of the whole planet they'll need to launch their higher inclination planes. Those higher inclination planes are currently authorized to be at 1000km+ in altitude. SpaceX has applied to lower them to under 600km, and probably doesn't want to start messing with those planes until their application is resolved one way or the other, but that resolution should happen before they finish the initial 1400 sat deployment.I'm not all that versed in orbital mechanics, but is there a reason not to deploy the higher inclination sats at 600km and raise them later if the application falls through? Difficulty in getting them to the right 1,000km planes maybe?
When they get all of the initial deployment (~1400 satellites) done then they'll have coverage from a bit under 60 degrees latitude down to the equator, which SpaceX often calls "global" coverage. It obviously isn't global, but covers most of the population of the world. To get coverage of the whole planet they'll need to launch their higher inclination planes. Those higher inclination planes are currently authorized to be at 1000km+ in altitude. SpaceX has applied to lower them to under 600km, and probably doesn't want to start messing with those planes until their application is resolved one way or the other, but that resolution should happen before they finish the initial 1400 sat deployment.I'm not all that versed in orbital mechanics, but is there a reason not to deploy the higher inclination sats at 600km and raise them later if the application falls through? Difficulty in getting them to the right 1,000km planes maybe?
The inclinations for many of those planes are also different in the current authorization, and even for the ones that are the same inclination they wouldn't be allowed to use them at 600km. With their current failure rates there would also probably be dead sats strewn all over the place if they start sending them higher. SpaceX has another 13-14 launches to go before they need to make the decision.16-17 more launches by my count, they need a few extra launches to get the full 22 satellites per plane.
16-17 more launches by my count, they need a few extra launches to get the full 22 satellites per plane.The circumference of the Earth at a latitude of 50 degrees is 26000 km, one satellite at an elevation angle of 25 degrees covers an area of 1350 km (I count a square, not a ring) , each plane has 2 satellites on this parallel. that is, at an angle of 25 degrees, for 50 degrees paralell only 10 planes are enough for full coverage.
They have documented plans for 22 satellites per plane. They have to get there eventually, or inform the FCC of a change in plans. Even with coverage, more satellites also gives more capacity. They already have solid coverage for the region covered by the beta, which has started. For actual service it sounds like they plan to first get 36 planes worth up which will give them a significantly larger range of latitudes with full coverage.16-17 more launches by my count, they need a few extra launches to get the full 22 satellites per plane.The circumference of the Earth at a latitude of 50 degrees is 26000 km, one satellite at an elevation angle of 25 degrees covers an area of 1350 km (I count a square, not a ring) , each plane has 2 satellites on this parallel. that is, at an angle of 25 degrees, for 50 degrees paralell only 10 planes are enough for full coverage.
And add 2..3 satellite in each plane is too expensive (from orbital mechanic point of view) . Better launch next new plane with 19..20 satellites - Space X need to have 72 planes ..
can you elaborate your statement which I've highlighted. I find it rather specific one.When they get all of the initial deployment (~1400 satellites) done then they'll have coverage from a bit under 60 degrees latitude down to the equator, which SpaceX often calls "global" coverage. It obviously isn't global, but covers most of the population of the world. To get coverage of the whole planet they'll need to launch their higher inclination planes. Those higher inclination planes are currently authorized to be at 1000km+ in altitude. SpaceX has applied to lower them to under 600km, and probably doesn't want to start messing with those planes until their application is resolved one way or the other, but that resolution should happen before they finish the initial 1400 sat deployment.I'm not all that versed in orbital mechanics, but is there a reason not to deploy the higher inclination sats at 600km and raise them later if the application falls through? Difficulty in getting them to the right 1,000km planes maybe?
The inclinations for many of those planes are also different in the current authorization, and even for the ones that are the same inclination they wouldn't be allowed to use them at 600km. With their current failure rates there would also probably be dead sats strewn all over the place if they start sending them higher. SpaceX has another 13-14 launches to go before they need to make the decision.
The dead ones never make it out of the very low initial orbit and very soon reenter. The others that have dying or significant problems start deorbiting. In all the normal such sats is about 1 <2% in a launch. It would take quite a few launches very rapidly to have a lot of deorbiting sats. A Starship is likely to carry up to 240 sats of the V2.0 version 25% bigger and heavier than the V1.0 ones launched on F9. On a Starship the dead or dying sats would be about 4 or <2% per launch. That is if SpaceX has not improved the Starlink sat manufacture quality with a lower dead and dying of 0 to 1 per 60 sats <1%. In the launch of 720 sats (12 F9 launches or 3 Starship launches) there would be ~12 dead and dying sats at the current death rate.can you elaborate your statement which I've highlighted. I find it rather specific one.When they get all of the initial deployment (~1400 satellites) done then they'll have coverage from a bit under 60 degrees latitude down to the equator, which SpaceX often calls "global" coverage. It obviously isn't global, but covers most of the population of the world. To get coverage of the whole planet they'll need to launch their higher inclination planes. Those higher inclination planes are currently authorized to be at 1000km+ in altitude. SpaceX has applied to lower them to under 600km, and probably doesn't want to start messing with those planes until their application is resolved one way or the other, but that resolution should happen before they finish the initial 1400 sat deployment.I'm not all that versed in orbital mechanics, but is there a reason not to deploy the higher inclination sats at 600km and raise them later if the application falls through? Difficulty in getting them to the right 1,000km planes maybe?
The inclinations for many of those planes are also different in the current authorization, and even for the ones that are the same inclination they wouldn't be allowed to use them at 600km. With their current failure rates there would also probably be dead sats strewn all over the place if they start sending them higher. SpaceX has another 13-14 launches to go before they need to make the decision.
I wonder if they'll be doing active dead satellite removal, either use a Starlink chassis based removal satellite or just use Starship to retrieve the dead satellites.SX meets or exceeds existing guidelines for both deorbiting dead sats and reentry survivability. Getting these standards changed would be a major uphill battle. Not impossible but difficult. We might end up seeing SX and ULA in alliance for once.
Regulatory wise, they shouldn't need to do this, but their detractors are making this an issue at FCC, and there's always the possibility FCC could tighten the rules in the future.
What position would ULA take on this? They just put the satellites up, they don't build any, and they don't even have any current customers that aren't ultimately USG.I wonder if they'll be doing active dead satellite removal, either use a Starlink chassis based removal satellite or just use Starship to retrieve the dead satellites.SX meets or exceeds existing guidelines for both deorbiting dead sats and reentry survivability. Getting these standards changed would be a major uphill battle. Not impossible but difficult. We might end up seeing SX and ULA in alliance for once.
Regulatory wise, they shouldn't need to do this, but their detractors are making this an issue at FCC, and there's always the possibility FCC could tighten the rules in the future.
As of June, SpaceX had 15 satellites that have lost maneuverability after moving above the injection orbits (6 from v0.9 and 9 from v1.0). I'd guess the failure rate wouldn't decrease if they start having to use the propulsion system a lot more to reach higher orbits. In their initial list of advantages for using lower orbits they included less wear and tear on the thruster. If they started using higher deployment orbits to lessen the load on the satellite propulsion system then they'd leave the tension rods and any rideshare adapters in those higher orbits. SpaceX would really prefer to just use the lower orbits.As I understand it, 15 is the minimum number of broken satellites. Space X have to report to the FCC only about those satellites that have lost the ability to move, that is, the plasma engine or the orientation and control system has failed. If antennas, transmitters, batteries, etc. do not work, Space X don`t need to report to the FCC.
As I understand it, 15 is the minimum number of broken satellites. Space X have to report to the FCC only about those satellites that have lost the ability to move, that is, the plasma engine or the orientation and control system has failed. If antennas, transmitters, batteries, etc. do not work, Space X don`t need to report to the FCC.Loss of command and telemetry antennas or loss of major power systems would also cause loss of ability to move. For failures that prevent intended operation (such as failure of the antennas for customer service), but allow proper use of engines, SpaceX can just deorbit them, so they are not relevant to the point that was being made about stranded satellites.
Why do you assume they're incapable of autonomously deorbiting if they lose comms?As I understand it, 15 is the minimum number of broken satellites. Space X have to report to the FCC only about those satellites that have lost the ability to move, that is, the plasma engine or the orientation and control system has failed. If antennas, transmitters, batteries, etc. do not work, Space X don`t need to report to the FCC.Loss of command and telemetry antennas or loss of major power systems would also cause loss of ability to move. For failures that prevent intended operation (such as failure of the antennas for customer service), but allow proper use of engines, SpaceX can just deorbit them, so they are not relevant to the point that was being made about stranded satellites.
Good question, I hadn't thought much about making that assumption.Why do you assume they're incapable of autonomously deorbiting if they lose comms?As I understand it, 15 is the minimum number of broken satellites. Space X have to report to the FCC only about those satellites that have lost the ability to move, that is, the plasma engine or the orientation and control system has failed. If antennas, transmitters, batteries, etc. do not work, Space X don`t need to report to the FCC.Loss of command and telemetry antennas or loss of major power systems would also cause loss of ability to move. For failures that prevent intended operation (such as failure of the antennas for customer service), but allow proper use of engines, SpaceX can just deorbit them, so they are not relevant to the point that was being made about stranded satellites.
Good question, I hadn't thought much about making that assumption.Why do you assume they're incapable of autonomously deorbiting if they lose comms?As I understand it, 15 is the minimum number of broken satellites. Space X have to report to the FCC only about those satellites that have lost the ability to move, that is, the plasma engine or the orientation and control system has failed. If antennas, transmitters, batteries, etc. do not work, Space X don`t need to report to the FCC.Loss of command and telemetry antennas or loss of major power systems would also cause loss of ability to move. For failures that prevent intended operation (such as failure of the antennas for customer service), but allow proper use of engines, SpaceX can just deorbit them, so they are not relevant to the point that was being made about stranded satellites.
Not impossible, but there are multiple other issues that mean they wouldn't necessarily always do so.
A loss of comms could be temporary due to ground system or other issues, would at the minimum require a significantly long time out. But what if the issue that causes loss of comms is a flipped orientation sensor? It could take a lot of complex logic to figure out autonomously what to do in various obscure cases. If the wrong one gets picked, thrust could happen in the wrong direction and make everything worse.
So maybe they could add that in, but I wouldn't bet on it. They are supposed to have autonomous collision avoidance, but even that would require ground inputs to know what to avoid. A rogue satellite that is maneuvering with 0 ground input could be a bigger problem than one that simply gives up on orbit maintenance after losing contact, and deorbits from drag within several years.
They have already applied to the FCC for an emergency comms mode that would allow them to send higher than usual power signals at short time intervals when they encounter an error on initial communication. It seems reasonable that they might initiate a deorbit protocol or at least actively stay at low orbit if that emergency communication fails. If they only do it before the first orbit raise, there's not exactly a lot of stuff to hit at 280km. And the tracking issue is no worse than actively deorbiting satellites which also won't stay thrusting all the way through reentry.Why bother at initial deployment? At 280 km the lifetime is negligible, maybe weeks or less. And the problem remains that a misconfigured IMU or similar error could result in it accidentally orbit raising instead of lowering. And anyway, this all started with talk of satellites getting stranded at locations other than the initial injection orbit.
As of June, SpaceX had 15 satellites that have lost maneuverability after moving above the injection orbits (6 from v0.9 and 9 from v1.0). I'd guess the failure rate wouldn't decrease if they start having to use the propulsion system a lot more to reach higher orbits. In their initial list of advantages for using lower orbits they included less wear and tear on the thruster. If they started using higher deployment orbits to lessen the load on the satellite propulsion system then they'd leave the tension rods and any rideshare adapters in those higher orbits. SpaceX would really prefer to just use the lower orbits.
Do the sats have star sensors? They would inform in orientation.Good question, I hadn't thought much about making that assumption.Why do you assume they're incapable of autonomously deorbiting if they lose comms?As I understand it, 15 is the minimum number of broken satellites. Space X have to report to the FCC only about those satellites that have lost the ability to move, that is, the plasma engine or the orientation and control system has failed. If antennas, transmitters, batteries, etc. do not work, Space X don`t need to report to the FCC.Loss of command and telemetry antennas or loss of major power systems would also cause loss of ability to move. For failures that prevent intended operation (such as failure of the antennas for customer service), but allow proper use of engines, SpaceX can just deorbit them, so they are not relevant to the point that was being made about stranded satellites.
Not impossible, but there are multiple other issues that mean they wouldn't necessarily always do so.
A loss of comms could be temporary due to ground system or other issues, would at the minimum require a significantly long time out. But what if the issue that causes loss of comms is a flipped orientation sensor? It could take a lot of complex logic to figure out autonomously what to do in various obscure cases. If the wrong one gets picked, thrust could happen in the wrong direction and make everything worse.
So maybe they could add that in, but I wouldn't bet on it. They are supposed to have autonomous collision avoidance, but even that would require ground inputs to know what to avoid. A rogue satellite that is maneuvering with 0 ground input could be a bigger problem than one that simply gives up on orbit maintenance after losing contact, and deorbits from drag within several years.
Do the sats have star sensors? They would inform in orientation.Not if there is an error and the star sensor is not working or giving bad data. Maybe a bit got flipped and the software is confused about the orientation of the sensor compared to the vehicle. Maybe it is stuck looping the same frame, or a fleck of debris cracked the lens and the cracks are confusing it. This would be a potential reason for loss of ground comms as the satellite is confused about orientation.
As of June, SpaceX had 15 satellites that have lost maneuverability after moving above the injection orbits (6 from v0.9 and 9 from v1.0). I'd guess the failure rate wouldn't decrease if they start having to use the propulsion system a lot more to reach higher orbits. In their initial list of advantages for using lower orbits they included less wear and tear on the thruster. If they started using higher deployment orbits to lessen the load on the satellite propulsion system then they'd leave the tension rods and any rideshare adapters in those higher orbits. SpaceX would really prefer to just use the lower orbits.this is "partial quote" statement which is as always is incorrect.
The 500km altitude is a no-brainer that they are using GPS receivers (probably redundant) for a near continuous IMU update. No Star tracker needed. GPS is far lighter and simpler than a Star Tracker. Note even a 1000km altitude can still use GPS.
Added: Also Note that Dragon and D2 also use GPS. They employ differential GPS for docking. Identical GPS receivers that on both the Dragon and ISS that then feed their data to a single computer (the one on Dragon) to calculate the relative position info without a lot of the noise (positioning errors cancel out because they will be the same error in the same amount in the same directions on both item due to how close they are).
They have star trackersSo instead of trying to calculate out a 6DF orientation calibration form GPS data they go for direct data from a Star Tracker. It may be the same one they use on Dragon or very similar.
The 500km altitude is a no-brainer that they are using GPS receivers (probably redundant) for a near continuous IMU update. No Star tracker needed. GPS is far lighter and simpler than a Star Tracker. Note even a 1000km altitude can still use GPS.I've put three antenna differential GPS devices on ships. A .5m antenna spacing gives you pretty accurate orientation data. 1m is better.
Added: Also Note that Dragon and D2 also use GPS. They employ differential GPS for docking. Identical GPS receivers that on both the Dragon and ISS that then feed their data to a single computer (the one on Dragon) to calculate the relative position info without a lot of the noise (positioning errors cancel out because they will be the same error in the same amount in the same directions on both item due to how close they are).
3 of them (GPS) would give a full easy to calculate out 6DF (3D position [only one GPS receiver needed] and 3D orientation [added 2 more receivers] to the sat frame of reference) calibration info. A star tracker does this by tracking three known stars' locations in a field of view of the star tracker.The 500km altitude is a no-brainer that they are using GPS receivers (probably redundant) for a near continuous IMU update. No Star tracker needed. GPS is far lighter and simpler than a Star Tracker. Note even a 1000km altitude can still use GPS.I've put three antenna differential GPS devices for ships. a .5m antenna spacing gives you pretty accurate orientation data. 1m is better.
Added: Also Note that Dragon and D2 also use GPS. They employ differential GPS for docking. Identical GPS receivers that on both the Dragon and ISS that then feed their data to a single computer (the one on Dragon) to calculate the relative position info without a lot of the noise (positioning errors cancel out because they will be the same error in the same amount in the same directions on both item due to how close they are).
3 of them (GPS) would give a full easy to calculate out 6DF (3D position [only one GPS receiver needed] and 3D orientation [added 2 more receivers] to the sat frame of reference) calibration info. A star tracker does this by tracking three known stars' locations in a field of view of the star tracker.The 500km altitude is a no-brainer that they are using GPS receivers (probably redundant) for a near continuous IMU update. No Star tracker needed. GPS is far lighter and simpler than a Star Tracker. Note even a 1000km altitude can still use GPS.I've put three antenna differential GPS devices for ships. a .5m antenna spacing gives you pretty accurate orientation data. 1m is better.
Added: Also Note that Dragon and D2 also use GPS. They employ differential GPS for docking. Identical GPS receivers that on both the Dragon and ISS that then feed their data to a single computer (the one on Dragon) to calculate the relative position info without a lot of the noise (positioning errors cancel out because they will be the same error in the same amount in the same directions on both item due to how close they are).
The SkySats are on a triangular mounting plate that is on one side of the Starlink stack (sitting on top of one Starlink sat, anchored to three of the tension rod sets).
The SkySats are on a triangular mounting plate that is on one side of the Starlink stack (sitting on top of one Starlink sat, anchored to three of the tension rod sets).
OK, so presumably you could have two of those mounting plates, one over each stack?
These are the two possible options for starlink rideshares. Blacksky used the double 15'' ring adapter, Planet used the single larger 14'' adapter with an additional adapter on top.
Are star trackers precise enough for satellite-to-satellite laser comms alignment? GPS can probably get down to centimeter-level accuracy. I'd imagine they'll have both regardless.
These are the two possible options for starlink rideshares. Blacksky used the double 15'' ring adapter, Planet used the single larger 14'' adapter with an additional adapter on top.
Do you have a pointer to the document from which those diagrams came?
softwaresaur on the Starlink subreddit has found an article about North Carolina Education officials wanting $1 Million in funding in order to provide 1000 Starlink "hotspots" for rural areas, which would start working in October!
Here's a link to the article
https://www.wral.com/state-education-officials-want-1-million-for-satellite-internet/19253243/
And here's a link to softwaresaur's post on the Starlink subreddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/igjnav/north_carolina_education_officials_want_1_million/
October is a little optimistic. Maybe that was next year, But "hotspot" could just be a library or small park wifi setup that could be put together pretty cheaply, depending on Starlink equipment cost, which is still mostly guesswork.softwaresaur on the Starlink subreddit has found an article about North Carolina Education officials wanting $1 Million in funding in order to provide 1000 Starlink "hotspots" for rural areas, which would start working in October!
Here's a link to the article
https://www.wral.com/state-education-officials-want-1-million-for-satellite-internet/19253243/
And here's a link to softwaresaur's post on the Starlink subreddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/igjnav/north_carolina_education_officials_want_1_million/
Those numbers (especially the dates) can't be right. I think some lawmaker got confused.
A confused lawmaker? For shame sir!softwaresaur on the Starlink subreddit has found an article about North Carolina Education officials wanting $1 Million in funding in order to provide 1000 Starlink "hotspots" for rural areas, which would start working in October!
Here's a link to the article
https://www.wral.com/state-education-officials-want-1-million-for-satellite-internet/19253243/ (https://www.wral.com/state-education-officials-want-1-million-for-satellite-internet/19253243/)
And here's a link to softwaresaur's post on the Starlink subreddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/igjnav/north_carolina_education_officials_want_1_million/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/igjnav/north_carolina_education_officials_want_1_million/)
Those numbers (especially the dates) can't be right. I think some lawmaker got confused.
It is possible that the NC Education officials have talked to SpaceX and have a price from SX including a remote wifi antenna. However I agree it seems cheap, unless there are as you say "janitors" or IT tec pp available to their department who can install the SX piza box. SpaceX may give preferential attention and support, or even pricing to education. Elon helped the schools in the Flint water crisis area. Helping schools is good press. A setup intended as a shared hotspot would also be a fantastic way of helping disadvantaged people connect, in community housing, etc.October is a little optimistic. Maybe that was next year, But "hotspot" could just be a library or small park wifi setup that could be put together pretty cheaply, depending on Starlink equipment cost, which is still mostly guesswork.softwaresaur on the Starlink subreddit has found an article about North Carolina Education officials wanting $1 Million in funding in order to provide 1000 Starlink "hotspots" for rural areas, which would start working in October!
Here's a link to the article
https://www.wral.com/state-education-officials-want-1-million-for-satellite-internet/19253243/
And here's a link to softwaresaur's post on the Starlink subreddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/igjnav/north_carolina_education_officials_want_1_million/
Those numbers (especially the dates) can't be right. I think some lawmaker got confused.
Depends on if they have a committee work out a plan to hire consultants to contact lawyers to come up with contract proposals with Cisco, all run by the county manager's brother in law from the local used car dealership, or have a janitor who knows how to go to Best Buy and get an external wifi antenna.
It is possible that the NC Education officials have talked to SpaceX and have a price from SX including a remote wifi antenna. However I agree it seems cheap, unless there are as you say "janitors" or IT tec pp available to their department who can install the SX piza box. SpaceX may give preferential attention and support, or even pricing to education. Elon helped the schools in the Flint water crisis area. Helping schools is good press. A setup intended as a shared hotspot would also be a fantastic way of helping disadvantaged people connect, in community housing, etc.October is a little optimistic. Maybe that was next year, But "hotspot" could just be a library or small park wifi setup that could be put together pretty cheaply, depending on Starlink equipment cost, which is still mostly guesswork.softwaresaur on the Starlink subreddit has found an article about North Carolina Education officials wanting $1 Million in funding in order to provide 1000 Starlink "hotspots" for rural areas, which would start working in October!
Here's a link to the article
https://www.wral.com/state-education-officials-want-1-million-for-satellite-internet/19253243/
And here's a link to softwaresaur's post on the Starlink subreddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/igjnav/north_carolina_education_officials_want_1_million/
Those numbers (especially the dates) can't be right. I think some lawmaker got confused.
Depends on if they have a committee work out a plan to hire consultants to contact lawyers to come up with contract proposals with Cisco, all run by the county manager's brother in law from the local used car dealership, or have a janitor who knows how to go to Best Buy and get an external wifi antenna.
I'm confused by this talk about needing additional wifi setup, doesn't Starlink end user package already include a wifi router (i.e. "hotspot")? We even saw it in the leaked unboxing video...
Seems like Starlink V2 with laser interlinks might be closer than thought
From ChickenNES on the Discord:Will need a month or so to hire someone. Then training another month. Then setup intial or improve the production line another couple of months.QuoteSeems like Starlink V2 with laser interlinks might be closer than thought
https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4719869002?gh_jid=4719869002
From ChickenNES on the Discord:Will need a month or so to hire someone. Then training another month. Then setup intial or improve the production line another couple of months.QuoteSeems like Starlink V2 with laser interlinks might be closer than thought
https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4719869002?gh_jid=4719869002
Production levels to initial keep up with the 120 sats per month sometime in Q1 2021. (Could even be January.) Folowed by launch of sats with interlinks H1 2021. (Could even be before March.) Here I am talking about all sats at this point have interlinks.
Prior possible this fall a small set of sats >4 with interlinks deployed to test their actual on-orbit performance before full scale deployment.
From ChickenNES on the Discord:Will need a month or so to hire someone. Then training another month. Then setup intial or improve the production line another couple of months.QuoteSeems like Starlink V2 with laser interlinks might be closer than thought
https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4719869002?gh_jid=4719869002
Production levels to initial keep up with the 120 sats per month sometime in Q1 2021. (Could even be January.) Folowed by launch of sats with interlinks H1 2021. (Could even be before March.) Here I am talking about all sats at this point have interlinks.
Prior possible this fall a small set of sats >4 with interlinks deployed to test their actual on-orbit performance before full scale deployment.
It's more like 4 months to bring all of the satellites from a launch into operation, not 2.Thanks.
It's more like 4 months to bring all of the satellites from a launch into operation, not 2.Thanks.
So Beta milestone numbers would not be reached ( ~800 sats actually participating) until practically January if in Sept there are 3 Starlink launches.
Also that means that at best operations 1440 sats on station is likely no earlier than 1 August.
The other thing missed is that with a successful SSO launch today. The ability to launch to such very high inclination orbits from the Cape is possible. Meaning using both coasts to launch to the high inclinations would mean a rapid 2+ per month launch rate. 2 from VAFB and 1 or even 2 from the Cape.
Speculation: chances are high that they had a handle on physical space needed for crosslink hardware when the current build was introduced and they made allowances for it. Crosslink might be a drop in with bigger batteries and PV. Maybe a slight thruster shift for changed CoG.From ChickenNES on the Discord:Will need a month or so to hire someone. Then training another month. Then setup intial or improve the production line another couple of months.QuoteSeems like Starlink V2 with laser interlinks might be closer than thought
https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4719869002?gh_jid=4719869002 (https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4719869002?gh_jid=4719869002)
Production levels to initial keep up with the 120 sats per month sometime in Q1 2021. (Could even be January.) Folowed by launch of sats with interlinks H1 2021. (Could even be before March.) Here I am talking about all sats at this point have interlinks.
Prior possible this fall a small set of sats >4 with interlinks deployed to test their actual on-orbit performance before full scale deployment.
A schedule like that might put it just after the initial shell has been fully deployed. It makes sense that they 1) don't aim to change the design or production process massively until early service is up and running and 2) they don't want to deploy the 4000+ sat big shell until they have a similarly uniform design where all the satellites can communicate with laser links.
They still need 2 or more launches still to get to the initial Beta amounts of ~800. And then it takes about 2 months after they are launched for them to get on station. They have launched just 9 times in 8 months. Even if the following months are at 2 per month average from now on. It will take another 7 months or March 2021 or latter to get to the 1440 sats on orbit but then add 2 months for them to get on station and your at 1 June 2021.Sooner is definitely better than later. They need to keep the non crosslink sats operational as long as possible to hit the FCC deployment benchmarks. I don't know if the benchmarks are tied to each license expansion or to the overall constellation. It could make a difference.
It is better to get the intersat links up sooner rather than latter because once they start going up the sats without interlinks are basically obsolete. They can be used but in the long run they are less than fully useful. In order to populate higher inclination orbits for >60 degree latitude operations. Intersat links are almost a must have. These orbits would nominally be populated after the 1440 milestone has been reached. It would also be a good point to transition to fully operational intersat links for those orbits since they can operate almost without help from the existing set of 1440. After those orbits are populated and full earth coverage is provided, including oceans through the use of those same higher inclination orbit sats with intersat links. The replacement augmentation of the existing 1440 would begin. Most likely if starship is launching by then they would be V2.0 sats which are heavier (likely) with more individual throughput than the V1.0 sats.
It is better to get the intersat links up sooner rather than latter because once they start going up the sats without interlinks are basically obsolete. They can be used but in the long run they are less than fully useful. In order to populate higher inclination orbits for >60 degree latitude operations.
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I Auction
Auction ID: 904
Incomplete Applications
0017434911 Hughes Network Systems, LLC [@OneWeb?]
0026043968 Space Exploration Technologies Corp [@SpaceX]
source: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-960A3.pdf
No application from @amazon Kuiper or @Telesat.
https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1300875705933324289
If I remember correctly the requirement from the FCC license is 1/2 by March 2024. 6 years from date of license. Then 100% 9 years from date of license.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-authorizes-spacex-provide-broadband-satellite-services (https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-authorizes-spacex-provide-broadband-satellite-services)
I do not think there will be a problem in meeting the requirement. The number of sats (2200) is "operational on orbit sats on the date" not launched sats by the date. They should be able to reach the 2200 milestone in 2022.
Kate Tice noted on the L11 webcast that SpaceX has successfully completed an in-space test of intersatellite laser links, transferring "hundreds of gigabytes" of data between two satellites.
twitter.com/spacex/status/1301500710656159745QuoteIn initial tests of Starlink, the team has been collecting latency data and performing standard speed tests of the system
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1301500711633444865QuoteResults from these tests have shown super low latency and download speeds greater than 100 megabytes per second – fast enough to stream multiple HD movies at once and still have bandwidth to spare
Results from these tests have shown super low latency and download speeds greater than 100 mbps – fast enough to stream multiple HD movies at once and still have bandwidth to spare
They just said in the Starlink 12 launch webcast that they have been testing two Starlink satellites with the space lasers.
Man, SpaceX sure gives Starlink concern-trolls a workout having to constantly move the goalposts...1) Starlink is vaporware.
2) Starlink I sn’t vaporware, but OneWeb will beat them to deployment. SpaceX won’t be able to ramp up production fast enough because they have no satellite experience.
3) OneWeb won’t beat them to deployment and SpaceX can ramp production, but the user terminals don’t exist.
4) The user terminals exist, but SpaceX won’t ever be able to do laser satellite links.
5) Sure the laser links have been tested on-orbit, but...
We’re right here.
And probably should add:1) Starlink will pose too much of a risk due to falling debris.
2) Sure, SpaceX made starlink fully demisable, but Starlink’s high altitude LEO shell will cause an unacceptable risk to future generations due to LEO debris.
3) Sure, Starlink’s altitude is now lowered to a largely self-cleaning low LEO altitude, but the numerous satellites will ruin the sky for starwatchers for all time.
4) Sure, Starlink now has visors that make them invisible to the naked eye once reaching operational attitude/altitude, but...
Man, SpaceX sure gives Starlink concern-trolls a workout having to constantly move the goalposts...1) Starlink is vaporware.
2) Starlink I sn’t vaporware, but OneWeb will beat them to deployment. SpaceX won’t be able to ramp up production fast enough because they have no satellite experience.
3) OneWeb won’t beat them to deployment and SpaceX can ramp production, but the user terminals don’t exist.
4) The user terminals exist, but SpaceX won’t ever be able to do laser satellite links.
5) Sure the laser links have been tested on-orbit, but...
We’re right here.
And probably should add:1) Starlink will pose too much of a risk due to falling debris.
2) Sure, SpaceX made starlink fully demisable, but Starlink’s high altitude LEO shell will cause an unacceptable risk to future generations due to LEO debris.
3) Sure, Starlink’s altitude is now lowered to a largely self-cleaning low LEO altitude, but the numerous satellites will ruin the sky for starwatchers for all time.
4) Sure, Starlink now has visors that make them invisible to the naked eye once reaching operational attitude/altitude, but...
Man, SpaceX sure gives Starlink concern-trolls a workout having to constantly move the goalposts...1) Starlink is vaporware.
2) Starlink I sn’t vaporware, but OneWeb will beat them to deployment. SpaceX won’t be able to ramp up production fast enough because they have no satellite experience.
3) OneWeb won’t beat them to deployment and SpaceX can ramp production, but the user terminals don’t exist.
4) The user terminals exist, but SpaceX won’t ever be able to do laser satellite links.
5) Sure the laser links have been tested on-orbit, but...
We’re right here.
And probably should add:1) Starlink will pose too much of a risk due to falling debris.
2) Sure, SpaceX made starlink fully demisable, but Starlink’s high altitude LEO shell will cause an unacceptable risk to future generations due to LEO debris.
3) Sure, Starlink’s altitude is now lowered to a largely self-cleaning low LEO altitude, but the numerous satellites will ruin the sky for starwatchers for all time.
4) Sure, Starlink now has visors that make them invisible to the naked eye once reaching operational attitude/altitude, but...
The satellite and telecom people obviously were't paying attention when SpaceX played the same trick on the launch vehicle industry experts about 5 years ago.
Not only do they iterate, they pivot. I have followed since before F1-1 and then an F5 was envisioned. That F5 never occurred and the F1 was dropped when they pivoted to the F9.
Not only do they iterate, they pivot. I have followed since before F1-1 and then an F5 was envisioned. That F5 never occurred and the F1 was dropped when they pivoted to the F9.
And Stainless Steel for Starship was their biggest pivot so far. Hard to anticipate what pivots they could do with Starlink. Maybe they'll buyout a fiber company and build a hybrid system within Starlink.
From an FCC filing today (not really anything new besides this page)Any word about lasers in the FCC filing? (not that they need FCC approval for optical)
SpaceX successfully landed it's first booster almost 5 years ago. However, they started working on it years before that.
That's what people miss with Elon Musk led ventures. He sets the ethos and works on things for years, then one day people notice and think it's an over night success. Raptor has been almost 10 years, Starlink is about 5 years I think.
What SpaceX, Starlink (and Tesla) do better than anyone else is relentlessly iterate. Get something out there, learn from it and continue revising and improving. The Falcon 9 is the best example of this, but they do this on everything they do.
Starlink 5 years from now, who knows what they'll be doing. You can be certain they'll be years ahead of anyone else.
From an FCC filing today (not really anything new besides this page)
From an FCC filing today (not really anything new besides this page)
Very information dense. Thank you. "Hundreds of gateways across the US" is definitely new and significant information. An order of magnitude more than expected.
This would be required of any natsec related payloads on Starlink.
From an FCC filing today (not really anything new besides this page)
Very information dense. Thank you. "Hundreds of gateways across the US" is definitely new and significant information. An order of magnitude more than expected.
I'm wondering if that actually means sites or antennas
"Hundreds of gateways across the US" is definitely new and significant information. An order of magnitude more than expected.Maybe more than you expected but it seems right to me -- if the eventual destination of a packet is on some other carrier you want the traffic off your network as quickly and efficiently as possible. Large numbers of peer-to-peer interconnections to other carriers is the way this is done. (The same of course goes for traffic *to* Starlink destinations from other carriers; I would not be surprised to learn that they'll need to establish a ground-based backbone network between their gateways, at least until the inter-satellite links are viable for this..)
"Hundreds of gateways across the US" is definitely new and significant information. An order of magnitude more than expected.Maybe more than you expected but it seems right to me -- if the eventual destination of a packet is on some other carrier you want the traffic off your network as quickly and efficiently as possible. Large numbers of peer-to-peer interconnections to other carriers is the way this is done. (The same of course goes for traffic *to* Starlink destinations from other carriers; I would not be surprised to learn that they'll need to establish a ground-based backbone network between their gateways, at least until the inter-satellite links are viable for this..)
I'm speaking in terms of what benefits the carrier (economically, in the long term), not what benefits the packet in the short term. No network operator has enough information to be sure that it's always sending traffic via the instantaneously globally optimal route -- inter-domain routing is really hard, and tends to falls back to "reachability" (can I get there at all?) rather than "routing" (what's the best way to get there?). But they do have the necessary visibility to see what's going on within their own network and make adjustments to keep it performing well."Hundreds of gateways across the US" is definitely new and significant information. An order of magnitude more than expected.Maybe more than you expected but it seems right to me -- if the eventual destination of a packet is on some other carrier you want the traffic off your network as quickly and efficiently as possible. Large numbers of peer-to-peer interconnections to other carriers is the way this is done. (The same of course goes for traffic *to* Starlink destinations from other carriers; I would not be surprised to learn that they'll need to establish a ground-based backbone network between their gateways, at least until the inter-satellite links are viable for this..)
Maybe you don't mean this in the way it comes across, but it's not obvious to me that this is necessarily true.
If "as quickly and efficiently" really means "at the optimal off-network transition", then that would sound more correct. And of course it well might be that the optimal point is ASAP because the remainder of the route has adequate latency.
I'm speaking in terms of what benefits the carrier (economically, in the long term), not what benefits the packet in the short term.
Several possibilities come to mind.This would be required of any natsec related payloads on Starlink.
It may not even require additional payloads if they're looking at things like having Starlink interact with the SDA constellation.
From an FCC filing today (not really anything new besides this page)
From an FCC filing today (not really anything new besides this page)
Very information dense. Thank you. "Hundreds of gateways across the US" is definitely new and significant information. An order of magnitude more than expected.
I'm wondering if that actually means sites or antennas
Hmm... just noticed this... what do you think is hanging out on Starlink?
MODELING AND SIMULATION ENGINEER (TOP SECRET CLEARANCE)
Hawthorne, CA, United States
MODELING AND SIMULATION ENGINEER
The Modeling and Simulation Engineer will be instrumental to the design, optimization and execution of SpaceX developed satellite constellations and payload missions. You will gather requirements around customer payload requests, develop simulations and models of the constellation request and work cross-functionally to integrate models of payload criteria. You will identify key performance parameters and constraints to enable mission success and future payload capabilities.
This would be required of any natsec related payloads on Starlink.
It may not even require additional payloads if they're looking at things like having Starlink interact with the SDA constellation.
My sudden thought, building on your "Starlink is not mentioned at all in the advert"(CuddlyRocket), is that it is "just" to be a person within SpaceX, who with Top Secret Clearance, can ask and be given secret information from the military and government, such as orbits of secret satellites, or signals that might cause interference, so as to be able to "model" orbits etc for SpaceX and SpaceX's customer's satellites so as not to conflict with these secret military (etc) satellites.Hmm... just noticed this... what do you think is hanging out on Starlink?
MODELING AND SIMULATION ENGINEER (TOP SECRET CLEARANCE)
Hawthorne, CA, United States
MODELING AND SIMULATION ENGINEER
The Modeling and Simulation Engineer will be instrumental to the design, optimization and execution of SpaceX developed satellite constellations and payload missions. You will gather requirements around customer payload requests, develop simulations and models of the constellation request and work cross-functionally to integrate models of payload criteria. You will identify key performance parameters and constraints to enable mission success and future payload capabilities.This would be required of any natsec related payloads on Starlink.
It may not even require additional payloads if they're looking at things like having Starlink interact with the SDA constellation.
Given that Starlink is not mentioned at all in SpaceX's vacancy advert, I don't think they're limiting themselves to uses of or developments from the Starlink system. I suspect they're intending to move into anything that requires or can take advantage of a satellite constellation, designing new satellites as appropriate and necessary. (They may well use Starlink for intra-constellation or orbit to Earth communication, of course.) Earth observation (including weather) would seem an obvious objective. Astronomical observations could be another. And there's no reason the constellations need be limited to Earth orbit. It's all a question of either finding someone willing to pay to establish the constellation or for the data it produces.
This role might also allow modelling of possible services to offer the military, such as additional coms to their satellites planes, to troops etc, or safely/confidentially interrogating provided secret data as part of bid preparation for any military contract.
Maybe someone is actually knowledgeable about this - unlike me.
Yes, I think I was a bit off on my expectations, as the number of gateways appears to be the number of antennas. The MIT study of a couple of years ago states a ~3,500 optimal number of gateway antennas (123 ground stations at 30 gateway antennas apiece) on the 4,425-satellite constellatio
Sounds like a way to kill several birds with one stone.My sudden thought, building on your "Starlink is not mentioned at all in the advert"(CuddlyRocket), is that it is "just" to be a person within SpaceX, who with Top Secret Clearance, can ask and be given secret information from the military and government, such as orbits of secret satellites, or signals that might cause interference, so as to be able to "model" orbits etc for SpaceX and SpaceX's customer's satellites so as not to conflict with these secret military (etc) satellites.Hmm... just noticed this... what do you think is hanging out on Starlink?
MODELING AND SIMULATION ENGINEER (TOP SECRET CLEARANCE)
Hawthorne, CA, United States
MODELING AND SIMULATION ENGINEER
The Modeling and Simulation Engineer will be instrumental to the design, optimization and execution of SpaceX developed satellite constellations and payload missions. You will gather requirements around customer payload requests, develop simulations and models of the constellation request and work cross-functionally to integrate models of payload criteria. You will identify key performance parameters and constraints to enable mission success and future payload capabilities.This would be required of any natsec related payloads on Starlink.
It may not even require additional payloads if they're looking at things like having Starlink interact with the SDA constellation.
Given that Starlink is not mentioned at all in SpaceX's vacancy advert, I don't think they're limiting themselves to uses of or developments from the Starlink system. I suspect they're intending to move into anything that requires or can take advantage of a satellite constellation, designing new satellites as appropriate and necessary. (They may well use Starlink for intra-constellation or orbit to Earth communication, of course.) Earth observation (including weather) would seem an obvious objective. Astronomical observations could be another. And there's no reason the constellations need be limited to Earth orbit. It's all a question of either finding someone willing to pay to establish the constellation or for the data it produces.
Without such a person/role with this clearance, I guess there is some way that the military can reject, or veto certain orbits (or signals) on a more individual basis.... which feels rather clunky.
With this person, modelling orbits including this secret data is possible, without, its see if it gets rejected, and if so have another go!
This role might also allow modelling of possible services to offer the military, such as additional coms to their satellites planes, to troops etc, or safely/confidentially interrogating provided secret data as part of bid preparation for any military contract.
Maybe someone is actually knowledgeable about this - unlike me.
The operator's network works like this, the traffic from the subscriber must first go to the operator's node there is a billing system, speed/trafic volume control for the subscriber, police interceptor device,etc only then you can send traffic to the Internet, that is, to a traffic exchange point where traffic can be transferred to Comcast, Google, Amazon or Facebook networks/sites.I'm speaking in terms of what benefits the carrier (economically, in the long term), not what benefits the packet in the short term.
That's what I'm talking about too. Dumping the packet off-network at first opportunity may end up providing an inferior service experience to customers. May not. But it's definitely not just the other carrier's problem if SL customers get a poor experience.
"Optimal" means the best SL can compute based on the information and resources they have.
Your A-B interconnect transition may be such an optimal point but then that doesn't really sound like what you were addressing with the rationale for a large number of ground stations. That sounds like trying to dump the packet off-network at first opportunity. But that may not have been what your meant. Just sounded that way.
Yes, I think I was a bit off on my expectations, as the number of gateways appears to be the number of antennas. The MIT study of a couple of years ago states a ~3,500 optimal number of gateway antennas (123 ground stations at 30 gateway antennas apiece) on the 4,425-satellite constellatio
this is already outdated information, since then the orbit has been reduced by 2 times, that is, at least 4 times more gateways are needed
This "from 40 to 25 degrees" valid for user terminal for its link to satelliteYes, I think I was a bit off on my expectations, as the number of gateways appears to be the number of antennas. The MIT study of a couple of years ago states a ~3,500 optimal number of gateway antennas (123 ground stations at 30 gateway antennas apiece) on the 4,425-satellite constellatio
this is already outdated information, since then the orbit has been reduced by 2 times, that is, at least 4 times more gateways are needed
They have also asked to change the allowed elevation above the horizon for communicating with gateways from 40 to 25 degrees, which the other constellations are not happy about.
This "from 40 to 25 degrees" valid for user terminal for its link to satelliteYes, I think I was a bit off on my expectations, as the number of gateways appears to be the number of antennas. The MIT study of a couple of years ago states a ~3,500 optimal number of gateway antennas (123 ground stations at 30 gateway antennas apiece) on the 4,425-satellite constellatio
this is already outdated information, since then the orbit has been reduced by 2 times, that is, at least 4 times more gateways are needed
They have also asked to change the allowed elevation above the horizon for communicating with gateways from 40 to 25 degrees, which the other constellations are not happy about.
For Gateway is up to 5 degrees accordance new Space X files for FCC is possible, but really I mean is 15 degrees ..
I'm speaking in terms of what benefits the carrier (economically, in the long term), not what benefits the packet in the short term.
That's what I'm talking about too. Dumping the packet off-network at first opportunity may end up providing an inferior service experience to customers. May not. But it's definitely not just the other carrier's problem if SL customers get a poor experience.
"Optimal" means the best SL can compute based on the information and resources they have.
Your A-B interconnect transition may be such an optimal point but then that doesn't really sound like what you were addressing with the rationale for a large number of ground stations. That sounds like trying to dump the packet off-network at first opportunity. But that may not have been what your meant. Just sounded that way.
The operator's network works like this, the traffic from the subscriber must first go to the operator's node there is a billing system, speed/trafic volume control for the subscriber, police interceptor device,etc only then you can send traffic to the Internet, that is, to a traffic exchange point where traffic can be transferred to Comcast, Google, Amazon or Facebook networks/sites.
I do not think that Space X will place such a node on each Gateway. May be have 2 or 3 for all USA
For internet traffic exchange points in USA biggest IX are in New York (Secaucus, NJ and New York City), Washington, DC (Ashburn, VA), Washington, DC (Vienna,VA), Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Silicon Valley (Palo Alto, CA), Silicon Valley (San Jose, CA),
List of cities with IX is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_exchange_points
Of course , Space X can have own node near gateway and buy access to internet by local Internet provider near GateWay , but it cost some money and no guarantee for speed ..
With the dead sat count increasing, when will the external pressure to actively deorbit non-maneuverable Starlink sats kick in? Many dead sat norms were created in an age where megaconstellations were not foreseen. Will we see any significant regulatory changes, or will it take another collision between two chunks of debris like the famous Iridium collision?
I ask, because with Momentus and other OTV providers about to come online, will we see DogTags or similar grapple points become required equipment, along with a potential regulatory requirement for active removal?
Right now, it seems Starlink doesn't have grapple points. Aside from the mass penalty, it probably isn't horrific to add a DogTag somewhere on the Starlink bus?
Most of the Starlinks that encountered propulsion problems did initially move above their deployment orbit, and the failure rate has been running more like 3%.
Most of the Starlinks that encountered propulsion problems did initially move above their deployment orbit, and the failure rate has been running more like 3%.
The operator's network works like this, the traffic from the subscriber must first go to the operator's node there is a billing system, speed/trafic volume control for the subscriber, police interceptor device,etc only then you can send traffic to the Internet, that is, to a traffic exchange point where traffic can be transferred to Comcast, Google, Amazon or Facebook networks/sites.
Of course , Space X can have own node near gateway and buy access to internet by local Internet provider near GateWay , but it cost some money and no guarantee for speed ..
1) In some cases, the ground stations will be located directly at IXPs, but a lot of the time there will just be a local hookup to a POP for the transit provider.
2) customer management system, which can make decisions about throttling or extra billing for over-use.
3)The architectures for lawful intercept in the internet are distributed, usually with the access router able to clone the packets to and from the node under surveillance to a secure law enforcement collection point.
The operator's network works like this, the traffic from the subscriber must first go to the operator's node there is a billing system, speed/trafic volume control for the subscriber, police interceptor device,etc only then you can send traffic to the Internet, that is, to a traffic exchange point where traffic can be transferred to Comcast, Google, Amazon or Facebook networks/sites.
Of course , Space X can have own node near gateway and buy access to internet by local Internet provider near GateWay , but it cost some money and no guarantee for speed ..
1) In some cases, the ground stations will be located directly at IXPs, but a lot of the time there will just be a local hookup to a POP for the transit provider.
2) customer management system, which can make decisions about throttling or extra billing for over-use.
3)The architectures for lawful intercept in the internet are distributed, usually with theaccessedge router able to clone the packets to and from the node under surveillance to a secure law enforcement collection point.
1) in this case who will assign IP adress for StarLink`s user?? Local Provider??
2) Where (place) will be device what is responcible for throttling user traffic??
3) Space X will use access router from local provider for police interception?? or will install own by local provider`s node own server for it??
The access routers are the satellites themselves,
Most of the Starlinks that encountered propulsion problems did initially move above their deployment orbit, and the failure rate has been running more like 3%.
With the dead sat count increasing, when will the external pressure to actively deorbit non-maneuverable Starlink sats kick in? Many dead sat norms were created in an age where megaconstellations were not foreseen. Will we see any significant regulatory changes, or will it take another collision between two chunks of debris like the famous Iridium collision?
I ask, because with Momentus and other OTV providers about to come online, will we see DogTags or similar grapple points become required equipment, along with a potential regulatory requirement for active removal?
Right now, it seems Starlink doesn't have grapple points. Aside from the mass penalty, it probably isn't horrific to add a DogTag somewhere on the Starlink bus?
With the dead sat count increasing, when will the external pressure to actively deorbit non-maneuverable Starlink sats kick in? Many dead sat norms were created in an age where megaconstellations were not foreseen. Will we see any significant regulatory changes, or will it take another collision between two chunks of debris like the famous Iridium collision?
I ask, because with Momentus and other OTV providers about to come online, will we see DogTags or similar grapple points become required equipment, along with a potential regulatory requirement for active removal?
Right now, it seems Starlink doesn't have grapple points. Aside from the mass penalty, it probably isn't horrific to add a DogTag somewhere on the Starlink bus?
The Iridium collision was not between "two chunks of debris", it was an active Iridium satellite hitting a dead satellite which it was predicted to miss by several hundred meters, due to poor tracking data.
There are only 16 dead Starlinks on orbit currently. With the expected solar activity increase in about a year, all of them should decay in about 3 years. With much better tracking and collision avoidance systems in place since the Iridium collision, it's nearly certain that they will not participate in a collision with a live object before decay. It's also nearly certain that they will all decay before a deorbit mission could be planned and executed.
I don't believe there has been any confirmed cases of 2 tracked pieces of debris colliding.
The access routers are the satellites themselves,
This The access routers are the satellites themselves, is key point
Do you know or are you guessing?
This The routers are the satellites themselves, is key pointDo you know or are you guessing?
This The routers are the satellites themselves, is key pointDo you know or are you guessing?
I don't have access to any Starlink info, but there are only so many ways you can do this, especially when you're designing a network for consumer access. So you wind up with an architecture that looks like this:
Starlink (and all the other large constellations) are different. They have direct two-way connections to thousands of ground stations (and eventually to other sats) on thousands of virtual phased-array antennas.
This The routers are the satellites themselves, is key pointDo you know or are you guessing?
I don't have access to any Starlink info, but there are only so many ways you can do this, especially when you're designing a network for consumer access. So you wind up with an architecture that looks like this:
thanks for this drawing, which is based on the assumption that the satellite is a router. This is not a fact to me, as I have not seen any mention in any Space X posts or tweets about it. Not a single communication GSO satellite operating now and weighing 10 times more as StarLink no longer has the functions of a router. Perhaps Space X will arrange a revolution here too ...
twitter.com/planet4589/status/1303339099621855232QuoteMore orbit data overnight confirms that SpaceX now have control over S-1734 and it is no longer decaying
Perhaps Space X will arrange a revolution here too ...
...
There's an estimate I just found online that puts the power at something like 5kW (based on panel area), which would put *each* Starlink close to some GEO commsats. OneWeb's panels look like they're easily 10x smaller, and they only have the ability to operate as dumb relays, so this sort of adds up.
https://lilibots.blogspot.com/2020/04/starlink-satellite-dimension-estimates.html
So here is the [estimated] mass breakdown for total of 260kg per satellite:
75kg for 30m2, 6kW solar panels
33kg of Krypton propellant
30kg of high pressure vessel
7kg for HET
20kg PPU
24kg of batteries
71kg for everything else (structure, GNC, sensors, payload etc)
So Starlink satellite really packs a lot in its 260kg of wet mass!
I have this suspicion that the solar panel probably gives us an estimate of how much routing and computing power is on each satellite. The rather extreme flat packing I suspect hides how much capability these "small" sats have. Some of the published deployment pictures seem to indicate that the area of those panels is many times the area of the satellite itself.
There's an estimate I just found online that puts the power at something like 5kW (based on panel area), which would put *each* Starlink close to some GEO commsats. OneWeb's panels look like they're easily 10x smaller, and they only have the ability to operate as dumb relays, so this sort of adds up.
https://lilibots.blogspot.com/2020/04/starlink-satellite-dimension-estimates.html
Next issue is weight of the satellite. Published information is 500 pounds (227kg), ... The other information available is 260kg. So I will assume this is a difference between wet mass (260kg) and dry mass (227kg) which would mean that there is 33kg of Krypton available on-board.
The satellites absolutely are routers. They have to be, because they forward packets. The only alternatives to being a router would be if the forward ALL received packets to ALL downlinks,You are wrong about GSO and modern networks. For example, Hughesnet serves today hundreds of thousands of subscribers in the United States, and we (outside USA) use its Jupiter NOC for 10,000 VSATs via a geostationary satellite, all routing is done by Jupiter NOC (Network operational center) , and the satellite simply repeats the radio signal from Gateway with NOC to customer`s VSAT on the ground, satellite networks such as TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access ) have been operating for more than 15 years. and they solve 95% of all the tasks that StarLink faces
GEO satellites are usually repeaters because they forward everything received on a particular uplink to a particular downlink. They are pipes, not networks.
If you are saying that GSO sats are NOT routers, I never made that claim. I was referring to StarLink (and maybe other low-oribit constellations) when I wrote "The satellites absolutely are routers."The satellites absolutely are routers. They have to be, because they forward packets. The only alternatives to being a router would be if the forward ALL received packets to ALL downlinks,You are wrong about GSO and modern networks. For example, Hughesnet serves today hundreds of thousands of subscribers in the United States, and we (outside USA) use its Jupiter NOC for 10,000 VSATs via a geostationary satellite, all routing is done by Jupiter NOC (Network operational center) , and the satellite simply repeats the radio signal from Gateway with NOC to customer`s VSAT on the ground, satellite networks such as TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access ) have been operating for more than 15 years. and they solve 95% of all the tasks that StarLink faces
GEO satellites are usually repeaters because they forward everything received on a particular uplink to a particular downlink. They are pipes, not networks.
If the GEO sat is just repeating, it is not a router, just a pipe.Then why should StarLink differ from a well-proven solution ??
If the GEO sat is just repeating, it is not a router, just a pipe.Then why should StarLink differ from a well-proven solution ??
Note: A pipe usually means a dedicated channel or SCPC (Single Carrier per Channel)
https://lilibots.blogspot.com/2020/04/starlink-satellite-dimension-estimates.htmlThanks for this article!
If the GEO sat is just repeating, it is not a router, just a pipe.Then why should StarLink differ from a well-proven solution ??
Note: A pipe usually means a dedicated channel or SCPC (Single Carrier per Channel)
Without inter-satellite links starlink could indeed be just a pipe (with enough intelligence to know where is the nearest ground station at the moment). As soon as you introduce inter-satellite links the sat needs to look at each packet and determine the best path forward, so now it's a 'router'.
The satellites absolutely are routers. They have to be, because they forward packets. The only alternatives to being a router would be if the forward ALL received packets to ALL downlinks,You are wrong about GSO and modern networks. For example, Hughesnet serves today hundreds of thousands of subscribers in the United States, and we (outside USA) use its Jupiter NOC for 10,000 VSATs via a geostationary satellite, all routing is done by Jupiter NOC (Network operational center) , and the satellite simply repeats the radio signal from Gateway with NOC to customer`s VSAT on the ground, satellite networks such as TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access ) have been operating for more than 15 years. and they solve 95% of all the tasks that StarLink faces
GEO satellites are usually repeaters because they forward everything received on a particular uplink to a particular downlink. They are pipes, not networks.
Without inter-satellite links starlink could indeed be just a pipe (with enough intelligence to know where is the nearest ground station at the moment). As soon as you introduce inter-satellite links the sat needs to look at each packet and determine the best path forward, so now it's a 'router'.
I'm curious if the sats will need to be an "IP routers" though, i.e. will they need to make forwarding decisions based on the destination addresses in the headers of each internet protocol datagram. The other approach is to make forwarding decisions based on aspects of the link layer frame. Ethernet switches do that, for example.
Switches, in contrast, are typically (not always, but typically) "cut-through" devices: As a packet begins to be received on the input line, the switch selects the output line for it and feeds the packet straight to it. The amount of buffering is only a few bytes of cache between the input and output drivers.<Jim>No.</Jim>
Switches, in contrast, are typically (not always, but typically) "cut-through" devices: As a packet begins to be received on the input line, the switch selects the output line for it and feeds the packet straight to it. The amount of buffering is only a few bytes of cache between the input and output drivers.<Jim>No.</Jim>
These days for the data path the only real difference between a switch/bridge and router is how the underlying packet forwarding chip is programmed -- does it look at L2 headers, L3 headers, both, something else, etc.
Some switches and routers can be programmed to do cut-through if input & output port are the same speed and the output port is idle and the phase of the moon is right when the packet arrives -- otherwise the packet gets stored into a buffer & into a queue.
you may be confusing switches with the now-deprecated ethernet hubs which only did "cut-through" -- they were common back in the 10mbps era and more or less disappeared part way through the 100mbps era.
Because Elon said so. (and it's needed for the future)If the GEO sat is just repeating, it is not a router, just a pipe.Then why should StarLink differ from a well-proven solution ??
Note: A pipe usually means a dedicated channel or SCPC (Single Carrier per Channel)
If the system were mine to architect, the ground stations would dynamically configure the user terminals to tag outbound packets with hints. The satellites would follow those hints when making most forwarding decisions. If the hint on a packet couldn't be followed (e.g. an inter-satellite link was no longer available) or the packet had no hint, the satellite would forward the packet to any available ground station.Disclaimer: my networking experience dates back to when hubs were still a thing.
When a ground station received an un-hinted packet it would examine the packet contents to determine, based on the ground station's rather complete knowledge of the network, a new hint rule to send to the user terminal, ensuring similar packets in the future would be marked with appropriate hints.
I vaguely remember this approach when MPLS was in fashion. But I'm sure the Starlink architects will find an appropriate means of real-time traffic steering based on centralized policy. And I don't think that will require satellites to carry full IP routing tables.
Why fight it? Is there not some way to build an addressing scheme based on Lon/Lat?
If the system were mine to architect, the ground stations would dynamically configure the user terminals to tag outbound packets with hints. The satellites would follow those hints when making most forwarding decisions. If the hint on a packet couldn't be followed (e.g. an inter-satellite link was no longer available) or the packet had no hint, the satellite would forward the packet to any available ground station.
When a ground station received an un-hinted packet it would examine the packet contents to determine, based on the ground station's rather complete knowledge of the network, a new hint rule to send to the user terminal, ensuring similar packets in the future would be marked with appropriate hints.
I vaguely remember this approach when MPLS was in fashion. But I'm sure the Starlink architects will find an appropriate means of real-time traffic steering based on centralized policy. And I don't think that will require satellites to carry full IP routing tables.
Congratulations, you've just invented the internet. This is exactly what routing information protocols do.
Now I'm trying to remember how ATM worked.
I tried to picture all this with single users having 28 tabs open on their browsers, and conference calls involving people all over the world going, but my expertise doesn't go much beyond VOIP COS.
Would they maybe give users a single route for everything that doesn't have some sort of latency critical tag?
Congratulations, you've just invented the internet. This is exactly what routing information protocols do.
What I describe is not what protocols like RIP or BGP do, no. Routers using those protocols examine the destination address of the IP datagram to make their forwarding decisions. The hints I describe are outside the IP datagram.
All this protocol discussion seems to be a way to deal with the dynamic nature of the constellation. Why fight it? Is there not some way to build an addressing scheme based on Lon/Lat?
...
Don't even ask which layer would handle this. Beyond my pay grade.
@TheRadicalModerate: your architecture would work. That isn't sufficient to confirm it will be the architecture Starlink selects.
Bent pipe works. Interlink works. Mix n match is hard. I'm figuring the interlink are useless until enough are on orbit to form a useful link. It has to be something more than stretching past one ground station. So I figure the earliest ones just doing bent pipe and the interlinks used strictly in house while tweaking the system.Now I'm trying to remember how ATM worked.
There was an optical fiber going into a giant pile of money, and then a bunch of fibers going out of the giant pile of money.QuoteI tried to picture all this with single users having 28 tabs open on their browsers, and conference calls involving people all over the world going, but my expertise doesn't go much beyond VOIP COS.
Would they maybe give users a single route for everything that doesn't have some sort of latency critical tag?
Hey, it's just an IP network.
In the early days, this is really simple:
1) For uplink traffic:
a) Find your current gateway ground station.
b) Forward the traffic to it.
2) For downlink traffic:
a) Receive the traffic from the gateway ground station
b) Select the spot beam containing the destination IP address.
c) Forward the traffic.
It's really just a bent pipe, except that the gateway keeps changing, and there's horrible things happening in the routing information protocol to make it that simple.
As interlink birds come online, things get more complicated, but my guess is that the first phase of that is to reserve interlink birds for "ground" stations that can't reach a gateway, i.e., planes, ships, and extremely remote fixed-location subscribers. Then the algorithm is still simple: all the interlink bird has to do is forward traffic to another interlink bird that's over a gateway.
After this, I'm not sure what happens. I suspect that most traffic will still be hot-potatoed to the nearest ground gateway, but there will be certain classes of service that need extremely low latencies, and those will be kept in orbit for a long as possible. Even so, it's all just vanilla-flavored routing with a decidedly non-vanilla-flavored routing information protocol.
Bent pipe works. Interlink works. Mix n match is hard. I'm figuring the interlink are useless until enough are on orbit to form a useful link. It has to be something more than stretching past one ground station. So I figure the earliest ones just doing bent pipe and the interlinks used strictly in house while tweaking the system.
Ones the interlinks hit critical mass they'll be capable of doing some useful work but only in limited circumstances. By the seat of the pants I figure if every third or fourth plane were populated with ISL it could bridge across the North Atlantic or North America at high latitudes. At that point the ISL birds would stay bent pipe only at lower latitudes and do ISL only at the high latitudes where the distances between orbital planes are short enough for it to work.
As the number of ISL sats increases the latitude where they will work goes down and bent pipe will atrophy.
Hmmm. When you're saying orbits with inclinations greater than 90 deg, are we talking retrograde?Bent pipe works. Interlink works. Mix n match is hard. I'm figuring the interlink are useless until enough are on orbit to form a useful link. It has to be something more than stretching past one ground station. So I figure the earliest ones just doing bent pipe and the interlinks used strictly in house while tweaking the system.
Ones the interlinks hit critical mass they'll be capable of doing some useful work but only in limited circumstances. By the seat of the pants I figure if every third or fourth plane were populated with ISL it could bridge across the North Atlantic or North America at high latitudes. At that point the ISL birds would stay bent pipe only at lower latitudes and do ISL only at the high latitudes where the distances between orbital planes are short enough for it to work.
As the number of ISL sats increases the latitude where they will work goes down and bent pipe will atrophy.
I mostly agree with this, except I'm not sure that bent pipe ever really atrophies. Starlink is first and foremost an access network, and any cool applications it has for low-latency transit are fairly exotic. The best thing to do with edge traffic is what all access ISPs do: get rid of it as soon as possible.
My guess is that the secret sauce for how you mix 'n' match the ISL and non-ISL satellites is in how you allocate subscribers to birds. If the subscriber is either too far away from a gateway to do a virtual bent pipe (i.e., extremely remote or a transoceanic aviation or maritime sub), or a one with a fancy low-latency SLA, then you bind it preferentially to the ISL birds. If not, bind it to one of the non-ISL ones.
That doesn't mean that the ISL birds will never form a viable transit backbone, but it probably does mean that it'll take a long, long time before that backbone is more than a specialty item. However expensive undersea cables are, they're laid with massive amounts of dark fiber, so that their transit cost per OC-192 per month is going to beat Starlink's $/10Gbps/month for a long, long time.
One thing to look at: In phase 3 (https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-LOA-20200526-00055/2378671.pdf) (the 30K-bird application that's still pending before the FCC), take a look at the 12x12 shell at 604km x 148ş(!) and the 18x18 shell at 614km x 115.7ş. Those look like backbone routers to me. There doesn't appear to be anything in the text that distinguishes them from the other shells, but those puppies are in genuinely weird orbits. I'd kinda guess that they'll eventually turn out to be bigger, high-power satellites, with lots of ISL capacity and fairly modest RF beams.
The overall drift of what your saying is AIUI, the early system will stay bent pipe with cross links only to meet specific contractual needs and ocean access. From a technical POV this makes good sense.Bent pipe works. Interlink works. Mix n match is hard. I'm figuring the interlink are useless until enough are on orbit to form a useful link. It has to be something more than stretching past one ground station. So I figure the earliest ones just doing bent pipe and the interlinks used strictly in house while tweaking the system.
Ones the interlinks hit critical mass they'll be capable of doing some useful work but only in limited circumstances. By the seat of the pants I figure if every third or fourth plane were populated with ISL it could bridge across the North Atlantic or North America at high latitudes. At that point the ISL birds would stay bent pipe only at lower latitudes and do ISL only at the high latitudes where the distances between orbital planes are short enough for it to work.
As the number of ISL sats increases the latitude where they will work goes down and bent pipe will atrophy.
I mostly agree with this, except I'm not sure that bent pipe ever really atrophies. Starlink is first and foremost an access network, and any cool applications it has for low-latency transit are fairly exotic. The best thing to do with edge traffic is what all access ISPs do: get rid of it as soon as possible.
My guess is that the secret sauce for how you mix 'n' match the ISL and non-ISL satellites is in how you allocate subscribers to birds. If the subscriber is either too far away from a gateway to do a virtual bent pipe (i.e., extremely remote or a transoceanic aviation or maritime sub), or a one with a fancy low-latency SLA, then you bind it preferentially to the ISL birds. If not, bind it to one of the non-ISL ones.
That doesn't mean that the ISL birds will never form a viable transit backbone, but it probably does mean that it'll take a long, long time before that backbone is more than a specialty item. However expensive undersea cables are, they're laid with massive amounts of dark fiber, so that their transit cost per OC-192 per month is going to beat Starlink's $/10Gbps/month for a long, long time.
One thing to look at: In phase 3 (https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-LOA-20200526-00055/2378671.pdf) (the 30K-bird application that's still pending before the FCC), take a look at the 12x12 shell at 604km x 148ş(!) and the 18x18 shell at 614km x 115.7ş. Those look like backbone routers to me. There doesn't appear to be anything in the text that distinguishes them from the other shells, but those puppies are in genuinely weird orbits. I'd kinda guess that they'll eventually turn out to be bigger, high-power satellites, with lots of ISL capacity and fairly modest RF beams.
(is).. having multiple laser emitters in a cluster for increased bandwidth throughput between Starlink satellites instead of a single emitter doable?Multiple lasers at different wavelengths are commonly multiplexed over long-haul fiber to increase capacity. It would make sense to pursue this once the needed ISL bandwidth exceeds what can be pushed through a single laser.
Hmmm. When you're saying orbits with inclinations greater than 90 deg, are we talking retrograde?
The overall drift of what your saying is AIUI, the early system will stay bent pipe with cross links only to meet specific contractual needs and ocean access. From a technical POV this makes good sense.
From a financial POV it's less clear. A lot hinges on the cost of maintaining ground stations and their loading. A ground station in middle of the Great American Stinking Desert* that's doing relay for a low density population would be low hanging fruit ripe for decommissioning once ISL gets dense enough to pick up the slack. As ISL density increases more ground stations would fit this model.
But your right, it will not always make sense and bent pipe will be around for a long time.
Does having multiple laser emitters in a cluster for increased bandwidth throughput between Starlink satellites instead of a single emitter doable?
It is not the lasers or the electronics that is the difficult part of a free "vacuum" comm link system. But the telescopes and pointing equipment. Adapting existing optical long length travel multi-spectral high bandwidth would not be difficult except for the item that is the difficult part: aiming.(is).. having multiple laser emitters in a cluster for increased bandwidth throughput between Starlink satellites instead of a single emitter doable?Multiple lasers at different wavelengths are commonly multiplexed over long-haul fiber to increase capacity. It would make sense to pursue this once the needed ISL bandwidth exceeds what can be pushed through a single laser.
Rather than having 10 times the bandwidth to the neighbouring satellite, would it be more efficient to link any extra lasers between satellites that are twice or three times as far away?(is).. having multiple laser emitters in a cluster for increased bandwidth throughput between Starlink satellites instead of a single emitter doable?
It is not the lasers or the electronics that is the difficult part of a free "vacuum" comm link system. But the telescopes and pointing equipment. Adapting existing optical long length travel multi-spectral high bandwidth would not be difficult except for the item that is the difficult part: aiming.
Do we know where the"Hundreds of gateways across the US" is definitely new and significant information. An order of magnitude more than expected.Maybe more than you expected but it seems right to me -- if the eventual destination of a packet is on some other carrier you want the traffic off your network as quickly and efficiently as possible. Large numbers of peer-to-peer interconnections to other carriers is the way this is done. (The same of course goes for traffic *to* Starlink destinations from other carriers; I would not be surprised to learn that they'll need to establish a ground-based backbone network between their gateways, at least until the inter-satellite links are viable for this..)
Integrating ISL into a non ISL constellation has been bugging me. I think I've got a seed idea for a transition that adds the capability while still using the older sats.That's an interesting idea.
The core idea is to salt ISL sats throughout the existing constellation such that there are always at least two visible to each ground station at all times. When a ground station needs to forward data that will need more than one hop it will preferentially use an ISL sat. The ISL sats in turn will be dedicated to ISL and ground stations with no end user access, but will still have the capability.
Do we know where thegatewaysground stations are?
Seems like we talked about this. Is "ground station" a good term for the dish while "Gateway" is the site?Do we know where thegatewaysground stations are?
They're called gateways, there is a list in the index thread (bottom of the first post, there is a link to a map just above the list of locations)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48981.0
Seems like we talked about this. Is "ground station" a good term for the dish while "Gateway" is the site?Do we know where thegatewaysground stations are?
They're called gateways, there is a list in the index thread (bottom of the first post, there is a link to a map just above the list of locations)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48981.0
SpaceX colloquially calls the sites Gateways.
SpaceX colloquially calls the sites Gateways.
It is not the lasers or the electronics that is the difficult part of a free "vacuum" comm link system. But the telescopes and pointing equipment. Adapting existing optical long length travel multi-spectral high bandwidth would not be difficult except for the item that is the difficult part: aiming.(is).. having multiple laser emitters in a cluster for increased bandwidth throughput between Starlink satellites instead of a single emitter doable?Multiple lasers at different wavelengths are commonly multiplexed over long-haul fiber to increase capacity. It would make sense to pursue this once the needed ISL bandwidth exceeds what can be pushed through a single laser.
If the system were mine to architect, the ground stations would dynamically configure the user terminals to tag outbound packets with hints. The satellites would follow those hints when making most forwarding decisions. If the hint on a packet couldn't be followed (e.g. an inter-satellite link was no longer available) or the packet had no hint, the satellite would forward the packet to any available ground station.
When a ground station received an un-hinted packet it would examine the packet contents to determine, based on the ground station's rather complete knowledge of the network, a new hint rule to send to the user terminal, ensuring similar packets in the future would be marked with appropriate hints.
I vaguely remember this approach when MPLS was in fashion. But I'm sure the Starlink architects will find an appropriate means of real-time traffic steering based on centralized policy. And I don't think that will require satellites to carry full IP routing tables.
Congratulations, you've just invented the internet. This is exactly what routing information protocols do. Your "hints" are whatever metric is used to decide what the shortest / cheapest / fastest / least-congested / some-combination-of-all-of-the-above next hop is for the particular IP address. On top of that, you can imply classes of service if your network allows you to mark packets with DSCP codes, which are hints about what kind of application is producing/consuming the packets (e.g. ordinary best-effort traffic, streaming, live voice/video, gaming, telerobotics, etc.).
Note that "full routing tables" simply aren't a big deal. For one thing, Starlink exists in an era where "terabytes of RAM" no longer looks like a typo. But the other, more compelling reason is that it shouldn't be that hard to encode geographical information for ground stations into IPv6 addresses, which will cause routing information to collapse very cleanly into a small number of entries in the RIB. Then you'll still have to deal with a few tens of thousands of moving stations (for aircraft, ships, and starlink birds themselves), but that's not that big a deal these days.
I do, however, expect that the routing information protocol will contain things like the last state vector of the satellite, and some summary that allows easy mapping of geographically-encoded IP address groups to spot beam IDs. The interior routing protocol will be completely proprietary. But routing will work just like it always has: get the IP destination address, find the group address in the routing information base, use it to get the next hop, send the packet. All the heavy lifting is in the interior routing information protocol.
There were lots of reasons to invent MPLS, but the prime mover was so that people could use their frame-relay and ATM backbone networks, which didn't play well with IP routing protocols. It also simplified the implementation of VPNs that needed particular quality-of-service characteristics in an era where the signaling for that sort of thing was still in its infancy. The "switching" part was more about collapsing routing information into a manageable form than actual switching.
None of that applies to Starlink, except for maybe the need to reduce the size of the RIB. But, as I said above, I don't think that that's as much of a problem as you think.
I have to wonder how the five year sat lifetime and concurrent techno evolution will tweak this interrelationship.The overall drift of what your saying is AIUI, the early system will stay bent pipe with cross links only to meet specific contractual needs and ocean access. From a technical POV this makes good sense.
From a financial POV it's less clear. A lot hinges on the cost of maintaining ground stations and their loading. A ground station in middle of the Great American Stinking Desert* that's doing relay for a low density population would be low hanging fruit ripe for decommissioning once ISL gets dense enough to pick up the slack. As ISL density increases more ground stations would fit this model.
But your right, it will not always make sense and bent pipe will be around for a long time.
Yeah, I should have added that the definition of "too far away for a ground station" will expand somewhat as SpaceX prunes some of the expensive low-performers. But don't underestimate the extent to which even the most remote parts of the US are within a few hundred miles of an OC-192, or even a decent-sized IXP facility. Since SpaceX will have already spent the capex to install the stations in the first place (which is likely 10% actual ground station and 90% the border gateway equipment to peer with whoever's providing transit), it comes down to an opex tradeoff: Is it cheaper to keep paying the monthly hosting and bandwidth fees, or to throw more bandwidth at the Great Backbone in the Sky? Starlinks are cheap, but they're not that cheap--and they have opex of their own. As long as you can keep signing up new subs, they're always a better use for new birds than trimming your transit peering down.
The trade space here is crudely: more powerful laser on one end vs larger optics on the other end. Related are beam spread, mechanical precision, power and the optics's reentry survivability.It is not the lasers or the electronics that is the difficult part of a free "vacuum" comm link system. But the telescopes and pointing equipment. Adapting existing optical long length travel multi-spectral high bandwidth would not be difficult except for the item that is the difficult part: aiming.(is).. having multiple laser emitters in a cluster for increased bandwidth throughput between Starlink satellites instead of a single emitter doable?Multiple lasers at different wavelengths are commonly multiplexed over long-haul fiber to increase capacity. It would make sense to pursue this once the needed ISL bandwidth exceeds what can be pushed through a single laser.
I think I remember a video clip of ISL modeling that showed prograde sats being higher latency linking west. Retrograde could fix this.Hmmm. When you're saying orbits with inclinations greater than 90 deg, are we talking retrograde?
Yup. 148ş is a retrograde 32ş inclination. 115.7ş is retrograde 64.3ş.
Seems like a lot of stuff might be simplified by simply tagging a priority flag and a motion/acceleration state vector for endpoints on the packets, and maintain state vector tables on the sats? It would be a variation on maintaining a TLE database for avoidance on board right now, just bigger/fancier right? Then there's no real difference in handling static home customers, and dynamic customers such as aircraft, since they're all moving points relative to earth barycenter anyways.
Hrm, though that may upset some people as it isn't really that different from advanced military space situational awareness systems, or advanced airspace tracking for antiaircraft systems like AEGIS...
I think I remember a video clip of ISL modeling that showed prograde sats being higher latency linking west. Retrograde could fix this.Hmmm. When you're saying orbits with inclinations greater than 90 deg, are we talking retrograde?
Yup. 148ş is a retrograde 32ş inclination. 115.7ş is retrograde 64.3ş.
I've been trying to reconstruct that video in my head. I do remember noting that problem.I think I remember a video clip of ISL modeling that showed prograde sats being higher latency linking west. Retrograde could fix this.Hmmm. When you're saying orbits with inclinations greater than 90 deg, are we talking retrograde?
Yup. 148ş is a retrograde 32ş inclination. 115.7ş is retrograde 64.3ş.
I don't understand why that would be true. It's not like you're getting relativistic effects...
I've been trying to reconstruct that video in my head. I do remember noting that problem.
I think it had to do with paths to the west being more zig zagy than to the east. There was also mention that getting a link to the Southern Hemisphere has some latency issues. IIRC the example was London to Capetown.
I'll see if I can find the video.
I've been trying to reconstruct that video in my head. I do remember noting that problem.I think I remember a video clip of ISL modeling that showed prograde sats being higher latency linking west. Retrograde could fix this.Hmmm. When you're saying orbits with inclinations greater than 90 deg, are we talking retrograde?
Yup. 148ş is a retrograde 32ş inclination. 115.7ş is retrograde 64.3ş.
I don't understand why that would be true. It's not like you're getting relativistic effects...
I think it had to do with paths to the west being more zig zagy than to the east. There was also mention that getting a link to the Southern Hemisphere has some latency issues. IIRC the example was London to Capetown.
I'll see if I can find the video.
Well, my memory is fine. It's the indexing that's screwy. I think this is the video. I think it's dated but still relevant. I guess I remembered the London to South Africa link as being wonky with a minimal constellation and after that my index got scrambled.
Maritime internet access is a real market that would especially appreciate Starlink. I think in part, SpaceX is trying to just prove out the tech in that marketplace starting with their own ships. Eat your own dogfood, so to speak.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
Maritime internet access is a real market that would especially appreciate Starlink. I think in part, SpaceX is trying to just prove out the tech in that marketplace starting with their own ships. Eat your own dogfood, so to speak.The competition. It's not a misprint.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
Maritime internet access is a real market that would especially appreciate Starlink. I think in part, SpaceX is trying to just prove out the tech in that marketplace starting with their own ships. Eat your own dogfood, so to speak.The competition. It's not a misprint.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
Maritime internet access is a real market that would especially appreciate Starlink. I think in part, SpaceX is trying to just prove out the tech in that marketplace starting with their own ships. Eat your own dogfood, so to speak.The competition. It's not a misprint.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
I have Iridium on my boat for $150/month for what is basically the same as a 2400 baud modem (if you remember those). Good enough for downloading very small text files, sms and voice but can't even upload anything decent (like a photo/doc).I worked with Iridium when they rolled out their fax service. We couldn't get more than half a page through before it disconnected. Took them a week to figure out they had two copies of the software running on the fax server.
I'd willingly pay SpaceX 200/month for something decent.Maritime internet access is a real market that would especially appreciate Starlink. I think in part, SpaceX is trying to just prove out the tech in that marketplace starting with their own ships. Eat your own dogfood, so to speak.The competition. It's not a misprint.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
I have Iridium on my boat for $150/month for what is basically the same as a 2400 baud modem (if you remember those). Good enough for downloading very small text files, sms and voice but can't even upload anything decent (like a photo/doc).I worked with Iridium when they rolled out their fax service. We couldn't get more than half a page through before it disconnected. Took them a week to figure out they had two copies of the software running on the fax server.
I'd willingly pay SpaceX 200/month for something decent.Maritime internet access is a real market that would especially appreciate Starlink. I think in part, SpaceX is trying to just prove out the tech in that marketplace starting with their own ships. Eat your own dogfood, so to speak.The competition. It's not a misprint.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
I always liked them though, except for the crappy quality audio. They'll be one of the few services that Starlink won't be competing with. For now at least.
I wonder if the testing on their fleet of boats is an indication that they are ready to more widely deploy the laser linked versions in upcoming launches?
The Iridium service is good but just painfully slow. I sailed solo across the Atlantic last year and made voices calls from the middle of the ocean. That and small emails were great and useful.Assuming COVID continues for quite a while, working from a boat "home" will be more popular. And to continue away from the marina's WiFi would be fantastic. Great isolation, fresh air... and direct connection to the office!
If I had Starlink and 10mbs I'd be able to do Skype or Zoom calls from anywhere. The market is not just for the leisure boats but also for commercial boats/ships where a premium could be charged to provide a "marine" service. Add in aircraft and you're got a decent market very few others can touch.
Nice little earner for SpaceX.I have Iridium on my boat for $150/month for what is basically the same as a 2400 baud modem (if you remember those). Good enough for downloading very small text files, sms and voice but can't even upload anything decent (like a photo/doc).I worked with Iridium when they rolled out their fax service. We couldn't get more than half a page through before it disconnected. Took them a week to figure out they had two copies of the software running on the fax server.
I'd willingly pay SpaceX 200/month for something decent.Maritime internet access is a real market that would especially appreciate Starlink. I think in part, SpaceX is trying to just prove out the tech in that marketplace starting with their own ships. Eat your own dogfood, so to speak.The competition. It's not a misprint.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
I always liked them though, except for the crappy quality audio. They'll be one of the few services that Starlink won't be competing with. For now at least.
I wonder if the testing on their fleet of boats is an indication that they are ready to more widely deploy the laser linked versions in upcoming launches?
It is labelled as testing... but it might well be "internal beta testing" ie see how we get on using it for real.... and having free bandwidth.... It will make employees more useful, when they are hanging around at sea for an exrea day or two when a launch has a small delay! And it will make their time enjoyable. Plus it might allow better landing footage etc to be uploaded quickly.... and to save money by reducing other contracts!I wonder if the testing on their fleet of boats is an indication that they are ready to more widely deploy the laser linked versions in upcoming launches?
I suspect that it's the opposite. They need sea-based ground stations (either on buoys or boats) to be able to hop over the Atlantic or Pacific crossings. This would mostly give them the ability to support endpoints on heavily traveled aviation routes, but could also, in rare cases, allow them to transfer long-haul traffic through the satellite network instead of offloading it to some undersea transit carrier.
I know people have speculated about that possibility in the past, but...I wonder if the testing on their fleet of boats is an indication that they are ready to more widely deploy the laser linked versions in upcoming launches?
I suspect that it's the opposite. They need sea-based ground stations (either on buoys or boats) to be able to hop over the Atlantic or Pacific crossings. This would mostly give them the ability to support endpoints on heavily traveled aviation routes, but could also, in rare cases, allow them to transfer long-haul traffic through the satellite network instead of offloading it to some undersea transit carrier.
That sounds like a lot of work and huge upfront and operational costs and complexity that will become obsolete as soon as they have even a fraction of their satellites with inter-satellite links (and remember, they already have tested laser links on orbit, so it has been done at least between a couple satellites).
The Iridium service is good but just painfully slow. I sailed solo across the Atlantic last year and made voices calls from the middle of the ocean. That and small emails were great and useful.Assuming COVID continues for quite a while, working from a boat "home" will be more popular. And to continue away from the marina's WiFi would be fantastic. Great isolation, fresh air... and direct connection to the office!
If I had Starlink and 10mbs I'd be able to do Skype or Zoom calls from anywhere. The market is not just for the leisure boats but also for commercial boats/ships where a premium could be charged to provide a "marine" service. Add in aircraft and you're got a decent market very few others can touch.
Nice little earner for SpaceX.I have Iridium on my boat for $150/month for what is basically the same as a 2400 baud modem (if you remember those). Good enough for downloading very small text files, sms and voice but can't even upload anything decent (like a photo/doc).I worked with Iridium when they rolled out their fax service. We couldn't get more than half a page through before it disconnected. Took them a week to figure out they had two copies of the software running on the fax server.
I'd willingly pay SpaceX 200/month for something decent.Maritime internet access is a real market that would especially appreciate Starlink. I think in part, SpaceX is trying to just prove out the tech in that marketplace starting with their own ships. Eat your own dogfood, so to speak.The competition. It's not a misprint.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
I always liked them though, except for the crappy quality audio. They'll be one of the few services that Starlink won't be competing with. For now at least.
Ha. Tell me about it. Not a bad choice these days.
This starlink will be a real game changer though. Will be able to watch Netflix in the middle of the Atlantic!
I'll be the first to sign up once they even a partial solution.
Ha. Tell me about it. Not a bad choice these days.
This starlink will be a real game changer though. Will be able to watch Netflix in the middle of the Atlantic!
I'll be the first to sign up once they even a partial solution.
I'm sure I'm missing a ton here, but I've always thought the power of Starlink would be that with the laser interlinks they could add a new service area as soon as they have a license.
Ground stations can be added later but for small regions like the Caribbean they can hit serve people almost instantly.
If SpaceX was going to set up ships/ocean platforms for bouncing signals they would probably do it with higher performance parabolic dishes in Ka-band, not the lower performance user terminals in Ku-band.
The relay itself is trivial: It's just two endpoints glued together, each of them bound to separate satellites.
I know people have speculated about that possibility in the past, but...I wonder if the testing on their fleet of boats is an indication that they are ready to more widely deploy the laser linked versions in upcoming launches?
I suspect that it's the opposite. They need sea-based ground stations (either on buoys or boats) to be able to hop over the Atlantic or Pacific crossings. This would mostly give them the ability to support endpoints on heavily traveled aviation routes, but could also, in rare cases, allow them to transfer long-haul traffic through the satellite network instead of offloading it to some undersea transit carrier.
That sounds like a lot of work and huge upfront and operational costs and complexity that will become obsolete as soon as they have even a fraction of their satellites with inter-satellite links (and remember, they already have tested laser links on orbit, so it has been done at least between a couple satellites).
lots of islands that could have a station when they decide they want to go intercontinental.
Newfoundland sticks way out there.
greenland
iceland
azores
bermuda
Then for the Caribbean there is lots of islands pretty close together.
And for the middle of the ocean far from any islands they will just have to wait for ISL.
lots of islands that could have a station when they decide they want to go intercontinental.
Newfoundland sticks way out there.
greenland
iceland
azores
bermuda
Then for the Caribbean there is lots of islands pretty close together.
And for the middle of the ocean far from any islands they will just have to wait for ISL.
Agree. Transatlantic aircraft could be serviced easily. I don't think transatlantic or transpacific shipping routes at lower latitudes will be quite so easy.
What's needed for lower lats (I'm talking 10 degrees North or lower.)? Just a lot more sats?
What's needed for lower lats (I'm talking 10 degrees North or lower.)? Just a lot more sats?
Yes
More sats is just one component. Lower latitudes require more sats even over land, as sats are spread out more at lower lats, reason they are talking about rolling out service to mid latitudes first. Secondly, for transatlantic or transpacific shipping routes over lower latitudes, they'll need either, or a combination of intersatellite links, and/or ground stations in the ocean to bridge the gap. I suspect the ISL's will be the ones to do this.
I know people have speculated about that possibility in the past, but...I wonder if the testing on their fleet of boats is an indication that they are ready to more widely deploy the laser linked versions in upcoming launches?
I suspect that it's the opposite. They need sea-based ground stations (either on buoys or boats) to be able to hop over the Atlantic or Pacific crossings. This would mostly give them the ability to support endpoints on heavily traveled aviation routes, but could also, in rare cases, allow them to transfer long-haul traffic through the satellite network instead of offloading it to some undersea transit carrier.
That sounds like a lot of work and huge upfront and operational costs and complexity that will become obsolete as soon as they have even a fraction of their satellites with inter-satellite links (and remember, they already have tested laser links on orbit, so it has been done at least between a couple satellites).
The Iridium service is good but just painfully slow. I sailed solo across the Atlantic last year and made voices calls from the middle of the ocean. That and small emails were great and useful.There is a parallel in trucking. When I started the in trucking comms were via sat and the service was by the character type expensive. No firm numbers but they always pressed us to be terse. The systems evolved into cell connection as that market had expanded enough for that to be practical. The demands for terseness went away. I assume because it became cheap.
If I had Starlink and 10mbs I'd be able to do Skype or Zoom calls from anywhere. The market is not just for the leisure boats but also for commercial boats/ships where a premium could be charged to provide a "marine" service. Add in aircraft and you're got a decent market very few others can touch.
Nice little earner for SpaceX.I have Iridium on my boat for $150/month for what is basically the same as a 2400 baud modem (if you remember those). Good enough for downloading very small text files, sms and voice but can't even upload anything decent (like a photo/doc).I worked with Iridium when they rolled out their fax service. We couldn't get more than half a page through before it disconnected. Took them a week to figure out they had two copies of the software running on the fax server.
I'd willingly pay SpaceX 200/month for something decent.Maritime internet access is a real market that would especially appreciate Starlink. I think in part, SpaceX is trying to just prove out the tech in that marketplace starting with their own ships. Eat your own dogfood, so to speak.The competition. It's not a misprint.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
I always liked them though, except for the crappy quality audio. They'll be one of the few services that Starlink won't be competing with. For now at least.
I wonder if the testing on their fleet of boats is an indication that they are ready to more widely deploy the laser linked versions in upcoming launches?As Gongora said, they don't need ISL for testing on the boats, but the timing is interesting. I think that mostly the boats never go out so far that they can't do a bent pipe through a sat to a ground station. Maybe the landing barges for a long down range landing but otherwise fairly close.
Would buoys be stable enough in a blow? I've got zip for buoy knowledge.I wonder if the testing on their fleet of boats is an indication that they are ready to more widely deploy the laser linked versions in upcoming launches?
I suspect that it's the opposite. They need sea-based ground stations (either on buoys or boats) to be able to hop over the Atlantic or Pacific crossings. This would mostly give them the ability to support endpoints on heavily traveled aviation routes, but could also, in rare cases, allow them to transfer long-haul traffic through the satellite network instead of offloading it to some undersea transit carrier.
At the northernmost latitudes everything bunches up so much that a relatively low number of ISL sats could give a full transoceanic link. Maybe every third plane with ISL could do it, - even ignoring Nufi, Iceland and Greenland ground stations. And maybe even be dense enough that NY to London aviation could use it.More sats is just one component. Lower latitudes require more sats even over land, as sats are spread out more at lower lats, reason they are talking about rolling out service to mid latitudes first. Secondly, for transatlantic or transpacific shipping routes over lower latitudes, they'll need either, or a combination of intersatellite links, and/or ground stations in the ocean to bridge the gap. I suspect the ISL's will be the ones to do this.
Just remember that the ISL-capable birds and the non-ISL-capable birds can only be glued together via a ground bounce. So for transoceanic apps of any kind, you either need enough ISL birds for full coverage, which will take a while to deploy, or you still need some ships or buoys for a while.
I'm trying to figure out if a network of a lot of non-ISL and a few ISL reduces the number of ocean ground stations you'd need or not. You only need one ISL per ground station, and presumably it can then relay traffic close enough to shore. But you still need the ground station, irrespective of the number of non-ISL
lots of islands that could have a station when they decide they want to go intercontinental.Ascension Island & St. Helena for the Atlantic southern hemisphere.
... snip ...
And for the middle of the ocean far from any islands they will just have to wait for ISL.
I have Iridium on my boat for $150/month for what is basically the same as a 2400 baud modem (if you remember those). Good enough for downloading very small text files, sms and voice but can't even upload anything decent (like a photo/doc).I worked with Iridium when they rolled out their fax service. We couldn't get more than half a page through before it disconnected. Took them a week to figure out they had two copies of the software running on the fax server.
I'd willingly pay SpaceX 200/month for something decent.Maritime internet access is a real market that would especially appreciate Starlink. I think in part, SpaceX is trying to just prove out the tech in that marketplace starting with their own ships. Eat your own dogfood, so to speak.The competition. It's not a misprint.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
I always liked them though, except for the crappy quality audio. They'll be one of the few services that Starlink won't be competing with. For now at least.
Would buoys be stable enough in a blow? I've got zip for buoy knowledge.
If there's a steady flow of ships back and forth doing ground station duty I can see this working and I can see working with a few ships for testing, but with the vagaries of transportation there would have to be a superabundance of ships to ensure good connectivity along any particular route. I'm not sure exactly what a superabundance is exactly but to cover, say the NY-London aviation route, might need a 15-20 ships (or more) to make sure there is always one somewhere near where they need it. Ships spend time with load/unload, queued up for a dock, travel at different speeds, and probably get moved to different routes occasionally. Then there is the random bunching that smooths out with a larger population.
It's the chicken/egg problem. It won't work reliably until a critical mass of ships are doing relay and there's no incentive for a ship to set up as a relay for a service that doesn't exist and it can't use (until critical mass). Unless Elon gives it away and promises perks for quite a while why would a ship owner want to mount yet another antenna?
It may be that getting ISL up and running is easier than the practical problems of ship relay.
At the northernmost latitudes everything bunches up so much that a relatively low number of ISL sats could give a full transoceanic link. Maybe every third plane with ISL could do it, - even ignoring Nufi, Iceland and Greenland ground stations. And maybe even be dense enough that NY to London aviation could use it.
Once they have a few planes of ISL up they could start drifting individual non ISL sats out of their orbits to make way for ISL sats to salt into older plane populations. The non ISL sats would relocate to dilute ISL planes. This would be wasteful of propellant but the non ISL sats will have to be the first to be replaced anyway. As the population if ISL sats grows the latitude where it works for a full transoceanic link will creep towards the equator.
Would buoys be stable enough in a blow? I've got zip for buoy knowledge.I wonder if the testing on their fleet of boats is an indication that they are ready to more widely deploy the laser linked versions in upcoming launches?
I suspect that it's the opposite. They need sea-based ground stations (either on buoys or boats) to be able to hop over the Atlantic or Pacific crossings. This would mostly give them the ability to support endpoints on heavily traveled aviation routes, but could also, in rare cases, allow them to transfer long-haul traffic through the satellite network instead of offloading it to some undersea transit carrier.
If there's a steady flow of ships back and forth doing ground station duty I can see this working and I can see working with a few ships for testing, but with the vagaries of transportation there would have to be a superabundance of ships to ensure good connectivity along any particular route. I'm not sure exactly what a superabundance is exactly but to cover, say the NY-London aviation route, might need a 15-20 ships (or more) to make sure there is always one somewhere near where they need it. Ships spend time with load/unload, queued up for a dock, travel at different speeds, and probably get moved to different routes occasionally. Then there is the random bunching that smooths out with a larger population.
It's the chicken/egg problem. It won't work reliably until a critical mass of ships are doing relay and there's no incentive for a ship to set up as a relay for a service that doesn't exist and it can't use (until critical mass). Unless Elon gives it away and promises perks for quite a while why would a ship owner want to mount yet another antenna?
It may be that getting ISL up and running is easier than the practical problems of ship relay.
The problem with buoys is anchoring them. Some of the depths, even a short distance off the coasts , are just too deep to secure anything. Then there is the stability or lack of. No way a buoy could maintain a lock when the wave height increases.
Question 1 - What's the spacing needed for ground stations? What's the minimum distance from one to the other to get coverage at saw lower lats?
Question 2 - Is the ground station a repeater and sends the signal back up, or does it require a backhaul link to the net? Could users of Starlink (ie ships/planes) act as "ground stations"?
There is no need for spaceX to compete in the voice call market.
What I know about shipping is strictly derivative from trucking and conversations with railroaders. There are major overlaps in the two related industries that all concern being in possession of property that is owned by others and scheduling. These issues seem to be common to all transportation industries.Would buoys be stable enough in a blow? I've got zip for buoy knowledge.
If there's a steady flow of ships back and forth doing ground station duty I can see this working and I can see working with a few ships for testing, but with the vagaries of transportation there would have to be a superabundance of ships to ensure good connectivity along any particular route. I'm not sure exactly what a superabundance is exactly but to cover, say the NY-London aviation route, might need a 15-20 ships (or more) to make sure there is always one somewhere near where they need it. Ships spend time with load/unload, queued up for a dock, travel at different speeds, and probably get moved to different routes occasionally. Then there is the random bunching that smooths out with a larger population.
It's the chicken/egg problem. It won't work reliably until a critical mass of ships are doing relay and there's no incentive for a ship to set up as a relay for a service that doesn't exist and it can't use (until critical mass). Unless Elon gives it away and promises perks for quite a while why would a ship owner want to mount yet another antenna?
It may be that getting ISL up and running is easier than the practical problems of ship relay.
I have no buoy knowledge as well. I'd guess that ships are more likely, if for no other reason than that they require almost no engineering work.
Between Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroes, you just don't need that many ships--and you can load them up with whatever bandwidth ground stations you need. I'd guess that they could rent deck space on regular container ships and pay a slight premium to ensure that they're where they need to be, when they need to be. It's an inconvenience for the customers sending the containers, so they'll need to be compensated.
I'd guess that the real gating item here is how soon they plan to start filling up the 70ş shell. You can likely cover the Wast Coast-to-Europe aviation routes with the 53.8ş shells, but then you really would need some extra ships. But the West Coast-to-Europe routes are too far north for 53.8ş to work.
As a WAG, I'd guess that SX would be better off expanding the fleet. Ms Communication, Ms Take and Ms Anthropic?
As a WAG, I'd guess that SX would be better off expanding the fleet. Ms Communication, Ms Take and Ms Anthropic?
You're making up those names, right. Please, please tell me you're making them up! ;-)
Not related to that much, but can anyone shed insight on electronics rated for marine environments? Does it mainly just require better enclosures, or do circuit boards need to be manufactured differently to handle salt air, etc?
And only tangentially related to that, I quote Bob Wheeler writing recently in the Linley Newsletter, "The leading network-equipment vendors develop in-house ASICs for their top-end routers, which target service-provider-core networks." When it comes to the Starlink idea of deploying a core network in space, are there ASIC fabs making space-rated chips? LEO isn't deep space but still even aeronautical flight altitudes increase radiation exposure to some degree....
Here's another question - Starlink has everything organised into cells. Not sure the coverage of each cell but there's chat that you can't move from cell to cell. In other words, once you're set up in a cell that's it - It won't automatically pass you to the next cell.The cells are in constant motion and you are automatically passed on to a new one as your current one moves away.
So if I'm to use this on a boat (< 20 knots!) do I have to have it set up on one specific cell and that's it, or can I/will it switch from cell to cell and keep locked on?
Here's another question - Starlink has everything organised into cells. Not sure the coverage of each cell but there's chat that you can't move from cell to cell. In other words, once you're set up in a cell that's it - It won't automatically pass you to the next cell.The cells are in constant motion and you are automatically passed on to a new one as your current one moves away.
So if I'm to use this on a boat (< 20 knots!) do I have to have it set up on one specific cell and that's it, or can I/will it switch from cell to cell and keep locked on?
I understand that. the comment that I heard was that they allocate bandwidth at each sat depending on the number of subscribers in that geographical location and that this is fixed to prevent quality of service. This meant that you can't roam from location to location.
Here's another question - Starlink has everything organised into cells. Not sure the coverage of each cell but there's chat that you can't move from cell to cell. In other words, once you're set up in a cell that's it - It won't automatically pass you to the next cell.The cells are in constant motion and you are automatically passed on to a new one as your current one moves away.
So if I'm to use this on a boat (< 20 knots!) do I have to have it set up on one specific cell and that's it, or can I/will it switch from cell to cell and keep locked on?
I understand that. the comment that I heard was that they allocate bandwidth at each sat depending on the number of subscribers in that geographical location and that this is fixed to prevent quality of service. This meant that you can't roam from location to location.It might make sense to sell services but make a limit on number of users per 50x50mile square. And I agree that that could mean they restrict some sales or device usage geographically.
I understand that. the comment that I heard was that they allocate bandwidth at each sat depending on the number of subscribers in that geographical location and that this is fixed to prevent quality of service. This meant that you can't roam from location to location.
Here's another question - Starlink has everything organised into cells. Not sure the coverage of each cell but there's chat that you can't move from cell to cell. In other words, once you're set up in a cell that's it - It won't automatically pass you to the next cell.The cells are in constant motion and you are automatically passed on to a new one as your current one moves away.
So if I'm to use this on a boat (< 20 knots!) do I have to have it set up on one specific cell and that's it, or can I/will it switch from cell to cell and keep locked on?
I understand that. the comment that I heard was that they allocate bandwidth at each sat depending on the number of subscribers in that geographical location and that this is fixed to prevent quality of service. This meant that you can't roam from location to location.
At this point Starlink is only being marketed to non-mobile users, so the geo-locking makes sense. If they actively market to marine or other mobile users, obviously they will have to use another system.
But right now the point is moot since they are not offering it to boats in the initial rollout anyway.
...but I would really be surprised if they didn't include boats and planes in international waters/air space initially as well.As soon as they can, yes.
"What I've seen from Starlink has been impressive and positive," Air Force acquisition chief William Roper said during a reporter roundtable Wednesday.
"They're cleverly engineered satellites cleverly deployed. So, there's a lot to learn from how they're designed and I think that there's a lot we can learn from them."
...
"We can be the stability case for companies like SpaceX and others who want to sell communications worldwide. (They) may not be thinking about customers over the ocean, but we've got our Navy there. (They) may not be thinking about customers up in the Arctic but we have our airplanes there."
...
Starlink connected to a "variety of air and terrestrial assets" including the Boeing (BA) KC-135 Stratotanker, Roper said.
2020 Sep 21
To whom it may concern
Dear FCC,
I wish to correct misinterpretations of my work cited in the document 'Consolidated Opposition to Petitions and Response to Comments of Viasat Inc', dated Sep 15, 2020 and other documents from Viasat discussing the reliability of SpaceX's Starlink satellites.
Page 52 of the document mentioned above cites my work, available at
https://planet4589.org/space/stats/megacon/starbad.html, as suggesting that the SpaceX Starlink satellites have a 7 percent failure rate. This is a misreading of my results. They appear to be counting satellites which have been deliberately removed from orbit as 'failed' - an inexplicable interpretation. SpaceX have explicitly stated that the V0.9 satellites are being actively retired, and my analysis of the orbital data supports this.
A reasonable assessement of Starlink system reliability is, first, to consider only the 653 satellites (as of Sep 20) of the 'V1.0' system (neglecting the 60 early prototypes of the single V0.9 launch as unrepresentative). Of these satellites, inspection of the orbital data versus time suggests that 17 appear to have POSSIBLY failed (columns 'reentered after fail' and 'not maneuvering'). This represents a 2.6 percent failure rate. This rate is an upper limit, as some of these non-maneuvering satellites may be undergoing tests rather than actually failed.
My characterization of satellites as 'not maneuvering' is based on analysis of public orbital data. There is some uncertainty involved but the number derived should be a good upper limit. The further inference that these satellites are failed is just that, an inference. In some cases this inference is supported by SpaceX's reports to the FCC which acknowledge a certain number of failures , but without specifically identifying the satellites in question.
Even if you include the V0.9 system, the failure rate is then 25 out of 713, so 3.5 percent. Four satellites of the V1.0 system were deorbited prematurely - they may have failed in some way, but if so it's in a benign way that did not pose a threat to other space users. Even including these (which I feel is inappropriate) would represent at most a 4 percent rate. To include the deliberate retirement of the V0.9 satellites as failures , which Viasat appear to be doing, does not seem remotely justifiable to me.
I further note that my definition of 'failure' applies only to propulsive capability, not to the state of the communications payload. This is the appropriate definition when you are worried about risks to other space users.
To summarize, a fair assessment of my analysis of the Starlink system is that the current failure rate of the V1.0 satellites is at most about 3 percent (and possibly less), not 7 percent.
Sincerely,
Jonathan McDowell
Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian
60 Garden St., MS 6
Cambridge, MA 02138
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 617.447.9618
Skeptics' take based on history: SpaceX Wants to Conquer the Internet, But can Starlink overcome the ghosts of satellite constellations past? (https://www.airspacemag.com/space/spacex-wants-wire-world-180975837/), worth reading for how Teledesic failed.
Imagine if you really *were* fast enough to do dogfights remotely...
I just looked at a stack exchange article on the Predator drone's latency - it can definitely be a bit tricky to do certain things with the normal GEO comm link:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21352/how-do-drones-overcome-latency
In light of a recent article from a financial analyst firm stating that at 100Mb/s per customer each satellite can support a maximum of 200 simultaneous users in a cell, thus severely limiting Starlink’s total user base, can someone refute this claimed weakness?
Because even at 10x oversubscription this would greatly constrain the maximum number of customers the network can serve.
Basically, what prevents each satellite from having for example a 1Tb/s bandwidth rather than 20Gb/s as currently appears to be the case.
https://www.lightreading.com/4g3gwifi/starlinks-network-faces-significant-limitations-analysts-find/d/d-id/764159?_mc=sm_lr&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"Thus, assuming 100% efficiency (not realistic, but we are simply providing context as a high book-end), and assuming 20Gbit/s per satellite implies that each satellite can handle 200 simultaneous streams at 100Mbit/s," the analysts wrote.
U.S. Air Force acquisition chief Dr. Will Roper, after the military tested SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet service during a live exercise earlier this month:
"What I've seen from Starlink has been impressive and positive."
Roper: "We can be the stability case for companies like SpaceX and others ... (They) may not be thinking about customers over the ocean, but we've got our Navy there. (They) may not be thinking about customers up in the Arctic but we have our airplanes there."
It is a common layman's mistake to equate capacity with throughput, but if you are paying "analysts" you would hope for a lot better. But their research is based on "FCC filings, Tweets and other sources" so how could it be wrong ::)
"Thus, assuming 100% efficiency (not realistic, but we are simply providing context as a high book-end), and assuming 20Gbit/s per satellite implies that each satellite can handle 200 simultaneous streams at 100Mbit/s," the analysts wrote.
In crunching the number of satellites that would be covering the US at any one time, the analysts conclude that Starlink can serve 485,000 simultaneous data streams in the US with 100Mbit/s speeds if all 12,000 Starlink satellites are operational.
Note that the routing and protocols discussion got moved to its own thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51990.new#new).
Now:It is a common layman's mistake to equate capacity with throughput, but if you are paying "analysts" you would hope for a lot better. But their research is based on "FCC filings, Tweets and other sources" so how could it be wrong ::)
I'm not sure what your definitions are for "capacity" and "throughput", but each bird will indeed be able to support roughly 20Gpbs of downlink. The vast majority of the stuff being downlinked is either uplinked from gateway ground stations or will eventually arrive via ISL from other birds. That's a trivially small amount of bandwidth for a router these days, so just adding up all the output links is a pretty good approximation for the satellite's throughput.
If, by "capacity", you mean the number of subscribers each bird can support, that's accounted for in the article: they're using a 3x oversubscription, which is pretty conservative, but given how much everybody in every household (aka "a subscriber") is on their devices, it's probably not a terrible assumption. Another reason to be conservative: The peak to average ratio on the internet is pretty high. I've been a subscriber to a rural broadband internet service (microwave based), and I can tell you from experience that things are pretty unusable between the hours of 5PM and 7PM as people get home and go online. You can really annoy people if you oversubscribe too aggressively.
Here's the throughput computation from the article:Quote"Thus, assuming 100% efficiency (not realistic, but we are simply providing context as a high book-end), and assuming 20Gbit/s per satellite implies that each satellite can handle 200 simultaneous streams at 100Mbit/s," the analysts wrote.
In crunching the number of satellites that would be covering the US at any one time, the analysts conclude that Starlink can serve 485,000 simultaneous data streams in the US with 100Mbit/s speeds if all 12,000 Starlink satellites are operational.
So far so good: 485,000 streams / 200 streams/sat = 2425 sats, which is 20.2% of the 12,000 bird constellation. I'm too lazy to do the satellite density, but at the very least they've realized that coverage is denser at northern latitudes, because the continental US only comprises 1.96% of the Earth's surface area between the latitudes of ±54ş.
They then take that 485,000 streams and multiply by the 3x subscription factor to get ~1.5M subscribers.
Here's why this is too conservative:
1) Not only is everybody not online at once, everybody isn't streaming 100Mpbs at once. I think it's more likely that about 10% may be doing high-quality streaming, and even then they can probably go as low as 10Mpbs before people get really annoyed. The rest of the traffic is likely well under 1Mbps average. That takes the pre-oversubscription number up to at least 24M active users. Apply 3x oversubscription to that and you're looking at more that 70M subscribers.
2) These numbers are for the continental US only.
The analysis is ultimately aimed at asserting that Starlink is no threat to terrestrial ISPs, because the terrestrial guys can respond to increases in bandwidth demand a lot easier than Starlink. That analysis is sound. But that doesn't mean that the potential market for Starlink isn't massive, especially internationally.
Thanks for the detailed reply. Two things strike me as important from this:
1. The imperative to sign up customers in other countries where the satellites will otherwise be in “dead space” from a US customer point of view. That immediately expands the customer per satellite ratio without requiring any additional satellites or capacity expansion in orbit.
2. The seemingly obvious need to increase the capacity of each satellite. Why did they end up on 20Gb/s and not 50Gb/s or 1Tb/s for example? Is there some fundamental constraint that prevents that, or was it merely an example of SpaceX’s iterative approach to get minimum viable sats up fast, with higher capacity versions to be rolled out in future?
The analysis is ultimately aimed at asserting that Starlink is no threat to terrestrial ISPs, because the terrestrial guys can respond to increases in bandwidth demand a lot easier than Starlink. That analysis is sound. But that doesn't mean that the potential market for Starlink isn't massive, especially internationally.
In light of a recent article from a financial analyst firm stating that at 100Mb/s per customer each satellite can support a maximum of 200 simultaneous users in a cell, thus severely limiting Starlink’s total user base, can someone refute this claimed weakness?
Because even at 10x oversubscription this would greatly constrain the maximum number of customers the network can serve.
Basically, what prevents each satellite from having for example a 1Tb/s bandwidth rather than 20Gb/s as currently appears to be the case.
https://www.lightreading.com/4g3gwifi/starlinks-network-faces-significant-limitations-analysts-find/d/d-id/764159?_mc=sm_lr&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
It's amazing the number of FCC filings in the last two weeks on SpaceX's modification request. It is very hard-fought now that it looks like SpaceX will be successful in orbiting its system, with the two big issues being space safety by lower orbits and increased interference to others systems by moving from 40 degrees to 25 degrees.
Will be interesting to see what the FCC rules. My guess is that they will back the perceived winner, but you never know.
Not only is everybody not online at once, everybody isn't streaming 100Mpbs at once. I think it's more likely that about 10% may be doing high-quality streaming, and even then they can probably go as low as 10Mpbs before people get really annoyed. The rest of the traffic is likely well under 1Mbps average.For example, you (the reader), at this very moment, are using about 1K bytes per second, average. Crude calculation: a page of 20 posts is about 109K bytes as measured by 'curl'. If it takes you 109 seconds to read (or at least skim) 20 posts, that works out to 1K byte/second average.
In light of a recent article from a financial analyst firm stating that at 100Mb/s per customer each satellite can support a maximum of 200 simultaneous users in a cell, thus severely limiting Starlink’s total user base, can someone refute this claimed weakness?
Because even at 10x oversubscription this would greatly constrain the maximum number of customers the network can serve.
Basically, what prevents each satellite from having for example a 1Tb/s bandwidth rather than 20Gb/s as currently appears to be the case.
https://www.lightreading.com/4g3gwifi/starlinks-network-faces-significant-limitations-analysts-find/d/d-id/764159?_mc=sm_lr&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
The ~1600 sat initial constellation will have about 50 satellites over the US at any given time. At 200 simultaneous streams per sat and 10x oversubscription, that means the max size of the US user base can be 100,000 subscribers.
10x oversubscription is very low, though. 50x is much more likely, which means the initial constellation would support 500k subscribers in the US alone. Max data transfer would be 600 GB per subscriber per per month, and at $100/mo would generate $600M/yr in revenue from the US alone.
They could reasonably get 3-4x that many subscriptions outside the US... quadrupling revenue without adding any more satellites. Which is a very important point. GEO commsats operators cannot do that, they always need more capital investment in new satellites to expand their subscriber base once a given area saturates satellite capacity.
Over-subscription is much higher for higher bandwidths. It is not unreasonable that there'd be 10x over-subscription for 2.2Mbps but 50-100x for 100Mbps. I can't find the graph right now that shows this, but it's true and commonly accepted in the industry. (Think about it: almost nothing is encoded for 100Mbps, but lots of stuff like youtube will max out a 2.2Mbps pipe.... A 1080p youtube video uses just 3-9Mbps. And Netflix 1080p is 4-6Mbps, and it's pretty rare that you'll find a Netflix client that actually uses 4K, even if you pay for it, but even that is only 8-16Mbps. Almost nothing a household does regularly will use up a full 100Mbps pipe other than accelerating downloads like OS updates.)In light of a recent article from a financial analyst firm stating that at 100Mb/s per customer each satellite can support a maximum of 200 simultaneous users in a cell, thus severely limiting Starlink’s total user base, can someone refute this claimed weakness?
Because even at 10x oversubscription this would greatly constrain the maximum number of customers the network can serve.
Basically, what prevents each satellite from having for example a 1Tb/s bandwidth rather than 20Gb/s as currently appears to be the case.
https://www.lightreading.com/4g3gwifi/starlinks-network-faces-significant-limitations-analysts-find/d/d-id/764159?_mc=sm_lr&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
The ~1600 sat initial constellation will have about 50 satellites over the US at any given time. At 200 simultaneous streams per sat and 10x oversubscription, that means the max size of the US user base can be 100,000 subscribers.
10x oversubscription is very low, though. 50x is much more likely, which means the initial constellation would support 500k subscribers in the US alone. Max data transfer would be 600 GB per subscriber per per month, and at $100/mo would generate $600M/yr in revenue from the US alone.
They could reasonably get 3-4x that many subscriptions outside the US... quadrupling revenue without adding any more satellites. Which is a very important point. GEO commsats operators cannot do that, they always need more capital investment in new satellites to expand their subscriber base once a given area saturates satellite capacity.
Oversubscriptions are not as high as you think. You were right the first time with your 10x number.
I found this cable industry analysis of traffic in DOCSIS Converged Cable Access Platforms from two years ago. (https://www.nctatechnicalpapers.com/Paper/2018/2018-analysis-and-prediction-of-peak-data-rates-through-docsis-cores)
This has average per-subscriber peak access rates at about 2.2 Mbps in mid-2018....
Over-subscription is much higher for higher bandwidths. It is not unreasonable that there'd be 10x over-subscription for 2.2Mbps but 50-100x for 100Mbps. I can't find the graph right now that shows this, but it's true and commonly accepted in the industry. (Think about it: almost nothing is encoded for 100Mbps, but lots of stuff like youtube will max out a 2.2Mbps pipe.... A 1080p youtube video uses just 3-9Mbps. And Netflix 1080p is 4-6Mbps, and it's pretty rare that you'll find a Netflix client that actually uses 4K, even if you pay for it, but even that is only 8-16Mbps. Almost nothing a household does regularly will use up a full 100Mbps pipe other than accelerating downloads like OS updates.)
*NEW* SPACEX STARLINK INFOGRAPHIC
(Free to use for non-profit and educational purposes. Available for print publications on request)
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/09/28/1008972/us-army-spacex-musk-starlink-satellites-gps-unjammable-navigation/
Here we go! Starlink as unjammable GPS!
And just software update, no new hardware needed!
Fab new info graphic from Tony Bela:
...
That’s not an argument against the idea.
Basically using Starlink satellites as relays for the GPS signal. As if GPS jamming only exists at ground-level and cannot be done 500 km up. Sheesh....
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/09/28/1008972/us-army-spacex-musk-starlink-satellites-gps-unjammable-navigation/
Here we go! Starlink as unjammable GPS!
And just software update, no new hardware needed!
Basically using Starlink satellites as relays for the GPS signal. As if GPS jamming only exists at ground-level and cannot be done 500 km up. Sheesh....
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/09/28/1008972/us-army-spacex-musk-starlink-satellites-gps-unjammable-navigation/
Here we go! Starlink as unjammable GPS!
And just software update, no new hardware needed!
It laid out a summary and analysis of what is publically known and what may reasonably be inferred about broadband LEO systems, insofar as this information is needed to explore dual-purposing these systems for PNT.which will keep us busy speculating ;)
Spot beams, the most promising feature of the GPS III program for improved jamming immunity [8], have been abandoned.Does that mean that GPS III ( to be launched again in the next few days) is already out dated? Maybe discussion for another thread.
...Two things strike me as important from this:
1. The imperative to sign up customers in other countries where the satellites will otherwise be in “dead space” from a US customer point of view. That immediately expands the customer per satellite ratio without requiring any additional satellites or capacity expansion in orbit.
2. The seemingly obvious need to increase the capacity of each satellite. Why did they end up on 20Gb/s and not 50Gb/s or 1Tb/s for example? Is there some fundamental constraint that prevents that, or was it merely an example of SpaceX’s iterative approach to get minimum viable sats up fast, with higher capacity versions to be rolled out in future?
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1309250702867394560QuoteU.S. Air Force acquisition chief Dr. Will Roper, after the military tested SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet service during a live exercise earlier this month:
"What I've seen from Starlink has been impressive and positive."
https://www.investors.com/news/spacex-starlink-impressed-air-force-in-big-live-fire-exercise/
Edit to add:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1309250704389931008QuoteRoper: "We can be the stability case for companies like SpaceX and others ... (They) may not be thinking about customers over the ocean, but we've got our Navy there. (They) may not be thinking about customers up in the Arctic but we have our airplanes there."
I guess it's worth saying out loud that:
* The ocean coverage will be coming to SL very, very soon. As soon as inter sat links are deployed, which is beginning to roll out now.
* SX is planning to add to it's constellation a small number of satellites for polar coverage. This is already baked into the FAA approvals.
I guess it's worth saying out loud that:
* The ocean coverage will be coming to SL very, very soon. As soon as inter sat links are deployed, which is beginning to roll out now.
* SX is planning to add to it's constellation a small number of satellites for polar coverage. This is already baked into the FAA approvals.
We don't know when ISLs are rolling out. We know they're being tested.
They plan to add 520 satellites at 97 degrees and 720 satellites at 70 degrees in the latest modification. It's a little different in the currently approved license.
The FAA has nothing to do with licensing satellites.
Rolling out vs. tested. Tested could mean on the ground, in the basement, etc, etc. I used rolling out on purpose because we do know that ISL have been launched into space in the current constellation on some satellites. We both know this, so it's just an exercise in splitting hairs.
Rolling out vs. tested. Tested could mean on the ground, in the basement, etc, etc. I used rolling out on purpose because we do know that ISL have been launched into space in the current constellation on some satellites. We both know this, so it's just an exercise in splitting hairs.
You actually need something close to rolled out; rolling out ISL doesn't do you much good.
You should think of the ISL birds and the non-ISL birds as essentially separate router fabrics, which are tied together only by ground stations. If you want to enable a trans-ocean Starlink application, the non-ISL birds are useless unless the subscriber is close enough to a shore-based ground-stationą to get the bent pipe to be anchored to the terrestrial net.
So for ISL to make a difference, it has to have enough density of satellites that there's continuous coverage over the areas where service is offered. I don't think that's particularly difficult to do in the North Atlantic or North Pacific, but it'll require thousands of ISL birds before it'll work in lower latitudes--even if there are thousands of non-ISL birds already deployed.
___________________
ąThe other possibility is ship-based ground-bounces. We discussed this further up-thread. ISTM that the question boils down to whether dedicated ships are cost-effective, or whether you can convince regular cargo ships not only to carry ground station equipment, but be in the right place(s) at the right time(s). Logistics counts on cargo arriving in port at the right time. If ships need to loiter at specific spots for very long, the premium they'll charge probably makes it cheaper for SpaceX to rent its own ships.
That said, it's pretty easy to get full coverage of the North Atlantic with only a few ships. It might be a decent temporary solution for SpaceX to use until the density of ISL birds is high enough.
Some of us had suggested SpaceX would spin off Starlink as a separate, maybe IPO-able, company.
https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1310672832783884290
Some of us had suggested SpaceX would spin off Starlink as a separate, maybe IPO-able, company.
https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1310672832783884290
Eventually the investors that have been putting billions into SpaceX, perhaps directly for Starlink, will want their money back.
That’s what will drive the IPO, the lottery pay off.
Elon might keep enough shares, then buy them back though 🤪
I suspect the IPO will happen when Starship needs a major funding boost to set up shop on the Moon or Mars.
I suspect the IPO will happen when Starship needs a major funding boost to set up shop on the Moon or Mars.
I still think it IPO's when investors (wall street) want their money out.
That said, Elon Musk is a control maniac (pay pal lesson). Recall that he wanted to take Tesla private a few years ago. If he can use profits or borrow to buy out investors or take a company private again after an IPO, he might do that.
All of that relies on Starship deploying Starlink on mass and then licensing in other countries.
KEY POINTS
- Washington’s state military, which includes its emergency response division, began using Starlink user terminals in early August to bring internet service to areas devastated by wildfires.
- “I have spent the better part of four or five hours with some satellite equipment trying to get a good [connection]. So, to me, it’s amazing,” Washington state’s emergency telecommunications leader Richard Hall told CNBC.
- Washington has used Starlink to get regions “zero day communications,” Hall said.
[CNBC] Washington emergency responders first to use SpaceX’s Starlink internet in the field: ‘It’s amazing’ (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/washington-emergency-responders-use-spacex-starlink-satellite-internet.html)QuoteKEY POINTS
- Washington’s state military, which includes its emergency response division, began using Starlink user terminals in early August to bring internet service to areas devastated by wildfires.
- “I have spent the better part of four or five hours with some satellite equipment trying to get a good [connection]. So, to me, it’s amazing,” Washington state’s emergency telecommunications leader Richard Hall told CNBC.
- Washington has used Starlink to get regions “zero day communications,” Hall said.
Slight disagreement: Tesla’s investors are looking for growth, too, not a consistent dividend of profits. They expect massive growth, not dividends. So their interests are aligned on that point.I suspect the IPO will happen when Starship needs a major funding boost to set up shop on the Moon or Mars.
I still think it IPO's when investors (wall street) want their money out.
That said, Elon Musk is a control maniac (pay pal lesson). Recall that he wanted to take Tesla private a few years ago. If he can use profits or borrow to buy out investors or take a company private again after an IPO, he might do that.
All of that relies on Starship deploying Starlink on mass and then licensing in other countries.
To your point, Elon will do what works for his goals, not those of investors. This is why Tesla is just barely profitable. Elon is reinvesting so much back into the company for R&D and growth and just keeping it barely profitable (not a bad thing). This is the same reason I think he will do an IPO, when the time comes that he needs a boost in funds to move things forward.
SpaceX has sent Hall both beta and the first commercial Starlink user terminals. He said the user terminals are all “great quality,” with the commercial ones being “just a bit more of a slicker, more finished product.”
The base of the terminal was originally a solid round weight but changed to a tripod, which Hall said allowed for a more flexible set up experience. While SpaceX told Hall that the terminal “required a clear North-facing shot,” some places he set them up were “slightly obscured but it still worked like a charm, with great speeds.”
So:
1) They have somewhat finalized user terminals in production
2) The round base we saw previously has been replaced by some tripod arrangement
SpaceX's Starlink has showed its utility in connecting far-flung locations to the internet quickly and relatively simply in Washington, where like much of the west coast wildfires have caused enormous damage to rural areas. A couple small towns in the state have received Starlink connections to help locals and emergency workers.
Slight disagreement: Tesla’s investors are looking for growth, too, not a consistent dividend of profits. They expect massive growth, not dividends. So their interests are aligned on that point.I suspect the IPO will happen when Starship needs a major funding boost to set up shop on the Moon or Mars.
I still think it IPO's when investors (wall street) want their money out.
That said, Elon Musk is a control maniac (pay pal lesson). Recall that he wanted to take Tesla private a few years ago. If he can use profits or borrow to buy out investors or take a company private again after an IPO, he might do that.
All of that relies on Starship deploying Starlink on mass and then licensing in other countries.
To your point, Elon will do what works for his goals, not those of investors. This is why Tesla is just barely profitable. Elon is reinvesting so much back into the company for R&D and growth and just keeping it barely profitable (not a bad thing). This is the same reason I think he will do an IPO, when the time comes that he needs a boost in funds to move things forward.
Starlink will be a revolution in connectivity, especially for remote regions or for emergency services when landlines are damaged
The initial starlink speeds are really impressive, the sub-20ms latency is just an icing on the cake
Average latency will improve as more satellites launch (directly above you more frequently) & more ground stations are deployed. As we’re able to put more ground stations on roofs of server centers, legacy Internet latency will be zero.
When will the public beta begin?
Very soon for higher latitudes like Seattle
Elon has been busy on twitter this morning
[spoiler]
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1311905182230491137QuoteStarlink will be a revolution in connectivity, especially for remote regions or for emergency services when landlines are damaged
twitter.com/ppathole/status/1311906144760197123QuoteThe initial starlink speeds are really impressive, the sub-20ms latency is just an icing on the cake
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1311923618679607298QuoteAverage latency will improve as more satellites launch (directly above you more frequently) & more ground stations are deployed. As we’re able to put more ground stations on roofs of server centers, legacy Internet latency will be zero.
twitter.com/tobyliiiiiiiiii/status/1311921214491779072QuoteWhen will the public beta begin?
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1311921724540190720QuoteVery soon for higher latitudes like Seattle
The Space Development Agency (SDA) is responsible for orchestrating the DoD's future threat-driven space architecture and accelerating the development and fielding of new military space capabilities necessary to ensure our technological and military advantage in space for national defense. To achieve this mission, SDA will unify and integrate next-generation space capabilities to deliver the National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA), a resilient military sensing and data transport capability via a proliferated space architecture primarily in Low Earth Orbit (LEO).
SDA's Tracking Layer will provide global indications, warning and tracking of advanced missile threats, including hypersonic missile systems. For Tranche 0 (the "warfighter immersion" tranche), two (2) programs will collaborate in the tracking layer: a Wide Field of View (WFOV) program focusing on technologies necessary to populate a proliferated LEO constellation and a Medium Field of View (MFOV) program focusing on technologies necessary for additional performance. The WFOV satellites are planned to be fielded in late FY22 and the MFOV satellites are planned to be fielded in mid-FY23; both sets of satellites will provide complementary mission data to C2 and operational interfaces.
This Request for Proposal (RFP) is for the WFOV program. Please see the attachments for details.
SpaceX has won an $149M contract from Uncle Sam to detect and track missile systems, particularly hypersonic missiles. It's for up to 8 satellites. Presumably the satellites will be Starlink-derived.This is an RFP development award and faces future downselect.
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/107a9e2ef34a455a8894c2dc7be5fad1/view
Here's a description of the contract:
QuoteThe Space Development Agency (SDA) is responsible for orchestrating the DoD's future threat-driven space architecture and accelerating the development and fielding of new military space capabilities necessary to ensure our technological and military advantage in space for national defense. To achieve this mission, SDA will unify and integrate next-generation space capabilities to deliver the National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA), a resilient military sensing and data transport capability via a proliferated space architecture primarily in Low Earth Orbit (LEO).
SDA's Tracking Layer will provide global indications, warning and tracking of advanced missile threats, including hypersonic missile systems. For Tranche 0 (the "warfighter immersion" tranche), two (2) programs will collaborate in the tracking layer: a Wide Field of View (WFOV) program focusing on technologies necessary to populate a proliferated LEO constellation and a Medium Field of View (MFOV) program focusing on technologies necessary for additional performance. The WFOV satellites are planned to be fielded in late FY22 and the MFOV satellites are planned to be fielded in mid-FY23; both sets of satellites will provide complementary mission data to C2 and operational interfaces.
This Request for Proposal (RFP) is for the WFOV program. Please see the attachments for details.
source: https://beta.sam.gov/opp/66971f395b1f45c79381e013bbf0c88f/view?keywords=hq085020r0003&sort=-relevance&index=&is_active=true&page=1
SpaceX has won an $149M contract from Uncle Sam to detect and track missile systems, particularly hypersonic missiles. ...This is an RFP development award and faces future downselect.
SpaceX has won an $149M contract from Uncle Sam to detect and track missile systems, particularly hypersonic missiles. It's for up to 8 satellites. Presumably the satellites will be Starlink-derived.
Hmm... just noticed this... what do you think is hanging out on Starlink?
MODELING AND SIMULATION ENGINEER (TOP SECRET CLEARANCE)
Hawthorne, CA, United States
MODELING AND SIMULATION ENGINEER
The Modeling and Simulation Engineer will be instrumental to the design, optimization and execution of SpaceX developed satellite constellations and payload missions. You will gather requirements around customer payload requests, develop simulations and models of the constellation request and work cross-functionally to integrate models of payload criteria. You will identify key performance parameters and constraints to enable mission success and future payload capabilities.
Once these satellites reach their target position, we will be able to roll out a fairly wide public beta in northern US & hopefully southern Canada. Other countries to follow as soon as we receive regulatory approval.
The Starlink sat program just grabbed it's first significant revenue. $149M for a SDA missile-detection set of sats ( 8 ) based on Starlink buss. Considering how much a Starlink sat costs $300K *8 = $2.4M + $4M to then launch them with other Starlinks. That leaves $142.6M for the engineering to adapt a Wide Field IR sensor and software changes for use of the planned ISL. Although the Sensor which is being procured from a third party could be expensive (like $10-15M each unit). The usual profit margin for these type of contracts are bid on a value of 20% ($30M profit). That is enough to pay for (100%) ~40 Starlink sats manufacture and deployment.Ya gotta love it when Elon does his development on somebody else's dime, they know it, and are ok with it.
For 20 more sats (the SDA goal is for a total of 28 sats) at a nominal price each of $18M. $360M with a profit of $60M is a significant income for the program.
Ya gotta love it when Elon does his development on somebody else's dime, they know it, and are ok with it.
Typically, SpaceX splits each batch of 60 satellites into three groups of 20, McDowell told Ars today. "The first group would reach target height in about 45 days; the second and third after 90 and 135 days roughly," he said.
No mention of proper spacing within the plane but I'd expect a delay in the raising of each sat and spacing as a natural result.
Yes, I'm sure the 45 day spacing is to get enough precession to grab another plane. But this got me thinking - alway a dangerous thing.No mention of proper spacing within the plane but I'd expect a delay in the raising of each sat and spacing as a natural result.
I'm pretty sure that the 3 groups spaced 45 days apart allow for the RAAN of each group to precess to the proper location before the group moves up to 550km to build a new plane.
There are supposed to be 72 planes of 22 birds, each at 550x53.2ş. My guess is that they're starting with 20 per plane, and plan to launch a couple of "top-off" missions to fill out the planes and replace the dead birds and the v0.9 birds that they appear to have decided to deorbit. Those missions will have tens of groups, each with only few birds per group, with each group waiting to precess to its RAAN.
Yes, I'm sure the 45 day spacing is to get enough precession to grab another plane. But this got me thinking - alway a dangerous thing.
The 20 sats going into a plane can all be raised at one time but this gives 20 sats all clustered together. They can then each hit a slightly different altitude so they spread evenly throughout the plane. How long this takes depends on the altitude differences. It can be a very slow process.
The time needed to spread the sats can be cut drastically by only raising one at a time or raising them at different rates because spread rate is dependent on the difference in orbital velocities. This causes a problem. AIUI, precession is fastest at low altitudes. The longer a sat loiters at low altitude the further it will precess from its coplaner siblings.
So, the choice seems to be 20 sats that take awhile to properly populate their plane, or 20 sats that populate it faster but can only be said to share a plane in some nominal sense.
What do we actually see?
Edit: Aha! I think I've got it. Raise them all together and only circularize one sat at a time. Should speed things up and the time spent at perigee would be minimized.
Other thoughts welcome.
The formula for precession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodal_precession) is
So, the choice seems to be 20 sats that take awhile to properly populate their plane, or 20 sats that populate it faster but can only be said to share a plane in some nominal sense.
I'm not familiar with how you're using the word anomaly. Can you explain? ThanksYes, I'm sure the 45 day spacing is to get enough precession to grab another plane. But this got me thinking - alway a dangerous thing.
The 20 sats going into a plane can all be raised at one time but this gives 20 sats all clustered together. They can then each hit a slightly different altitude so they spread evenly throughout the plane. How long this takes depends on the altitude differences. It can be a very slow process.
The time needed to spread the sats can be cut drastically by only raising one at a time or raising them at different rates because spread rate is dependent on the difference in orbital velocities. This causes a problem. AIUI, precession is fastest at low altitudes. The longer a sat loiters at low altitude the further it will precess from its coplaner siblings.
So, the choice seems to be 20 sats that take awhile to properly populate their plane, or 20 sats that populate it faster but can only be said to share a plane in some nominal sense.
What do we actually see?
Edit: Aha! I think I've got it. Raise them all together and only circularize one sat at a time. Should speed things up and the time spent at perigee would be minimized.
Other thoughts welcome.
It's inefficient (and likely risky) to have the whole group rise to a single anomaly and then phase out to the proper on-station anomalies.
If you look at McDowell's graphs of altitude vs. time, you'll notice that the risers are kinda smeary. I suspect that that smear contains all of the delays needed so that each bird in the group rises to the proper mean anomaly straight from the parking orbit.
I'm not familiar with how you're using the word anomaly. Can you explain? Thanks
It should not matter much if you space them then raise the orbits; or vice verse; or some other combinations. You should be able to overlap orbit raising and spacing them around the orbit without significant increase in dispersal of the RAAN
Thanks. I've never heard the word used that way. Usually it a precursor to a RUD.I'm not familiar with how you're using the word anomaly. Can you explain? Thanks
TL;DR version: For a circular orbit, all three types of anomalies are the same at any instant of timeą. The anomalies are time-dependent, but the trick is to get them so that they're equally spaced around the orbital plane (18ş between 20 birds) at any instant of time.
When Starlinks are released from the PAF, they all have the same anomaly. There are basically three ways they get to that "equally spaced" condition.
1) All of them maintain roughly the same anomaly (i.e., it's the same at any instant of time) all the way up to operational altitude, and then they phase to distribute.
2) Something weird happens with the heading angle during the boost phase, so that they arrive on station at roughly the proper anomaly spacing.
3) Bird #1 boosts first. Bird #2 waits to boost until the difference between the faster low orbit and the slower target orbit is enough to deliver it to the proper difference in anomaly when it reaches the target altitude. Then bird #3 does the same thing, and so on.
Method #3 is by far the most efficient.
____________________
ąThe anomaly is the current position of the satellite, in terms of the angle from the direction of periapse. It's a time-dependent quantity. There are three different anomalies:
1) Mean anomaly: the anomaly if the orbit were a circular orbit with the same energy.
2) True anomaly: the actual anomaly for the orbit, given its eccentricity.
3) Eccentric anomaly: an intermediate form between the mean and true anomaly that allows you to convert between the two.
However, because the orbits are more-or-less circular in this case, all three anomalies are the same at any given instant.
This brings into question the precision required in populating exactly on the plane. The rough crude numbers I've run show the planes separated by ~250-500km, depending on the latitude. Does 1-5km really make that much difference? From earth surface 1km would be ~0.2deg. That 1-5km came out of my hat.It should not matter much if you space them then raise the orbits; or vice verse; or some other combinations. You should be able to overlap orbit raising and spacing them around the orbit without significant increase in dispersal of the RAAN
It actually does. If you let each bird sit in the parking orbit until it reaches a point where the transfer orbit will deliver it directly to the proper anomaly in the (higher altitude) target orbit, the difference in periods between the parking and target orbits will give you the proper differences in anomaly with no delta-v expended.
If you bring all of the birds up to the target orbit at once, then phase all but one of them to get them separated, then you have to spend delta-v to phase them.
There is RAAN dispersal while each bird waits to get to the proper anomaly to start its boost burn, but that wait is only hours instead of the 45ish days required to get to approximately the right RAAN using only precession. There's also obviously uneven RAAN dispersal during the boost itself, especially with electric propulsion. Figuring out the exact heading angles to adjust for that is why we use computers.
This brings into question the precision required in populating exactly on the plane. The rough crude numbers I've run show the planes separated by ~250-500km, depending on the latitude. Does 1-5km really make that much difference? From earth surface 1km would be ~0.2deg. That 1-5km came out of my hat.
Of course altitude is a different matter and needs to be spot on.
Nit pick. Technically we should be looking at argument of latitude rather than anomaly. Argument of latitude is the sum of argument of periapsis and anomaly. This does not matter for casual explanations, but does matter if you are doing the math and may matter if you are looking at a table of orbital elements.I'm not familiar with how you're using the word anomaly. Can you explain? Thanks
TL;DR version: For a circular orbit, all three types of anomalies are the same at any instant of timeą. The anomalies are time-dependent, but the trick is to get them so that they're equally spaced around the orbital plane (18ş between 20 birds) at any instant of time.
____________________
ąThe anomaly is the current position of the satellite, in terms of the angle from the direction of periapse. It's a time-dependent quantity. There are three different anomalies:
Hopefully that cover is just cosmetic.
However, isn't Boca a little far south to pick up Starlink coverage?Whenever a Starlink satellite passes overhead, the dish has good internet. Boca Chica is too far south for that to happen continuously currently, but it happens fairly consistently.
However, isn't Boca a little far south to pick up Starlink coverage?Whenever a Starlink satellite passes overhead, the dish has good internet. Boca Chica is too far south for that to happen continuously currently, but it happens fairly consistently.
Right but it would need a ground relay somewhere within range to go anywhere. Not sure there is one close enough to work with anything passing over Boca Chica./s I hope?However, isn't Boca a little far south to pick up Starlink coverage?Whenever a Starlink satellite passes overhead, the dish has good internet. Boca Chica is too far south for that to happen continuously currently, but it happens fairly consistently.
Right but it would need a ground relay somewhere within range to go anywhere. Not sure there is one close enough to work with anything passing over Boca Chica./s I hope?However, isn't Boca a little far south to pick up Starlink coverage?Whenever a Starlink satellite passes overhead, the dish has good internet. Boca Chica is too far south for that to happen continuously currently, but it happens fairly consistently.
Otherwise, those six eggs ARE the ground relay.
Opps. I was looking at it using a viewer and didn't see the dishes. Need to put on my glasses next time.I think, based on sat elevation above the horizon, a ground station can reach out ~500km. Don't remember if that was 45 or 25 deg elevation. The FCC filings have changed.
My bad.
On the same topic - what's the range of a ground station? How close to the Starlink does it need to be to pick up a signal?Right but it would need a ground relay somewhere within range to go anywhere. Not sure there is one close enough to work with anything passing over Boca Chica./s I hope?However, isn't Boca a little far south to pick up Starlink coverage?Whenever a Starlink satellite passes overhead, the dish has good internet. Boca Chica is too far south for that to happen continuously currently, but it happens fairly consistently.
Otherwise, those six eggs ARE the ground relay.
SpaceX qualified to bid for the RDOF auction. It doesn't show what speeds/latencies they are allowed to bid.Sorry for the low value post but....Alpha Foxtrot Tango.
(Found via Caleb Henry retweet of Megaconstellations tweet because after looking fruitlessly every day last week I forgot to keep doing it this week)
https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1316085034860916739
https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904
Business Insider - "3% of SpaceX Starlink satellites may be failing in orbit around Earth"This is actually old info see this post.
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starlink-internet-satellites-percent-failure-rate-space-debris-risk-2020-10
+ $4M to then launch them with other Starlinks.
The source does not even claim that the values of ~3% is even an accurate number to attribute to failure rate since many of the sats mentioned are not being removed from orbit just in a paused mode for maneuvering."I would say their failure rate is not egregious," McDowell told Business Insider. "It's not worse than anybody else's failure rates. The concern is that even a normal failure rate in such a huge constellation is going to end up with a lot of bad space junk."
The source does not even claim that the values of ~3% is even an accurate number to attribute to failure rate since many of the sats mentioned are not being removed from orbit just in a paused mode for maneuvering."I would say their failure rate is not egregious," McDowell told Business Insider. "It's not worse than anybody else's failure rates. The concern is that even a normal failure rate in such a huge constellation is going to end up with a lot of bad space junk."
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-canada-1Because of the latitude max of the sats in the current constellation, only about 1/3 or possibly more of the area of Canada is covered. But since most of the rural population of Canada is in those lower latitudes and not in the higher 2/3rds. It is a good start for commercial offerings. Also Note is that once west of Toronto the population density is quite low for that area from US border to 53 degree latitude. With a 25 degree side angle on the sats they could reach another 500 km farther North than the 53 degree latitude.
Starlink in Canada, lots of rural users that would love broadband. Some real revenue possibility
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-canada-1Because of the latitude max of the sats in the current constellation, only about 1/3 or possibly more of the area of Canada is covered. But since most of the rural population of Canada is in those lower latitudes and not in the higher 2/3rds. It is a good start for commercial offerings. Also Note is that once west of Toronto the population density is quite low for that area from US border to 53 degree latitude. With a 25 degree side angle on the sats they could reach another 500 km farther North than the 53 degree latitude.
Starlink in Canada, lots of rural users that would love broadband. Some real revenue possibility
Ignoring the earth's curvature, and taking the height as 340miles (ie 550Km). The distance North of the 53 degree parallel is given by 340/Tan25 = 730 miles.https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-canada-1Because of the latitude max of the sats in the current constellation, only about 1/3 or possibly more of the area of Canada is covered. But since most of the rural population of Canada is in those lower latitudes and not in the higher 2/3rds. It is a good start for commercial offerings. Also Note is that once west of Toronto the population density is quite low for that area from US border to 53 degree latitude. With a 25 degree side angle on the sats they could reach another 500 km farther North than the 53 degree latitude.
Starlink in Canada, lots of rural users that would love broadband. Some real revenue possibility
Canada fliped the switch to on.https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-canada-1Because of the latitude max of the sats in the current constellation, only about 1/3 or possibly more of the area of Canada is covered. But since most of the rural population of Canada is in those lower latitudes and not in the higher 2/3rds. It is a good start for commercial offerings. Also Note is that once west of Toronto the population density is quite low for that area from US border to 53 degree latitude. With a 25 degree side angle on the sats they could reach another 500 km farther North than the 53 degree latitude.
Starlink in Canada, lots of rural users that would love broadband. Some real revenue possibility
Ha, I'm a secret insider, I grew up in Saskatchewan. It's true, the density is low, but the land mass is gigantic. SpaceX has done a good job placing the ground stations in the US to cover most of the people for an early release. Just flip the switch.
It will be exciting for so many people to have real bandwidth. Won't be long now.
There's still another authorization they need in Canada (for communicating with the Starlink satellites).Is that the UT license? If it is anything like the FCC one that means that some com lab somewhere in Canada must say yea or nay on the Starlink UT meeting Canada requirements before (if yea) that anyone can operate a UT in Canada. Else SpaceX would need to modify the UT for use in Canada.
Microsoft announces its Azure cloud network will connect to SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet — a corporate partnership that competes directly with the offerings of Jeff Bezos' Amazon (with AWS & Kuiper satellites) and Blue Origin.
More: cnbc.com/2020/10/20/mic…
SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell: “The collaboration [will] deliver connectivity through Starlink for use on Azure. Where it makes sense, we will work with [Microsoft]: co-selling to our mutual customers, co-selling to new enterprise and future customers."
KEY POINTS
Microsoft is partnering with SpaceX to connect the Azure cloud computing network to the growing Starlink satellite internet service offered by Elon Musk’s company.
The partnership comes as Microsoft expands into the space industry, with the company a few weeks ago unveiling a new service called Azure Orbital to connect satellites directly to the cloud.
Azure Space and the new partnership sets up Microsoft and SpaceX to compete further with Jeff Bezos’ businesses Amazon and Blue Origin, which have announced plans for similar satellite services and more.
There's still another authorization they need in Canada (for communicating with the Starlink satellites).Is that the UT license? If it is anything like the FCC one that means that some com lab somewhere in Canada must say yea or nay on the Starlink UT meeting Canada requirements before (if yea) that anyone can operate a UT in Canada. Else SpaceX would need to modify the UT for use in Canada.
If I do not have it right, please be more specific as to what approval remains.
Microsoft's Tom Keane & SpaceX's Gwynne Shotwell discuss Microsoft and SpaceX.
Learn more: http://msft.it/6001TFNfB
There's still another authorization they need in Canada (for communicating with the Starlink satellites).Is that the UT license? If it is anything like the FCC one that means that some com lab somewhere in Canada must say yea or nay on the Starlink UT meeting Canada requirements before (if yea) that anyone can operate a UT in Canada. Else SpaceX would need to modify the UT for use in Canada.
If I do not have it right, please be more specific as to what approval remains.
Starlink is still not on List of foreign satellites approved to provide fixed-satellite services (FSS) in Canada (https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf02104.html). It may be approved and the list on the page isn't updated yet, but it should have to be on there for SpaceX to offer service in Canada.
Great video of Tom and Gwynne.
I think Starlink is going to be a bigger business, much bigger than people thing. That it's going to be multiple hundreds of billions.
And that is what is going to drive Starship development, they need Starship to deploy enough satellites in enough time.
It's going to be a very exciting couple of years.
Microsoft Corp. is teaming with Elon Musk’s SpaceX and others as the software giant opens a new front in its cloud-computing battle with Amazon.com Inc., targeting space customers.
Microsoft would help connect and deploy new services using swarms of low-orbit spacecraft being proposed by SpaceX, and more traditional fleets of satellites circling the earth at higher altitudes. Microsoft’s initiative targeting commercial and government space businesses, formally launched Tuesday, comes about three months after Amazon Web Services,...
Unfortunately this article is behind the WSJ paywall, but maybe it exists somewhere else. If you find a link to a free copy, it seems interesting. (A summary is free at MSFT on Thinkorswim of TD Ameritrade.)
Great video of Tom and Gwynne.
I think Starlink is going to be a bigger business, much bigger than people thing. That it's going to be multiple hundreds of billions.
And that is what is going to drive Starship development, they need Starship to deploy enough satellites in enough time.
It's going to be a very exciting couple of years.
To me it all comes down to the bandwidth capacity per satellite. Clearly this is the limiting factor which needs to be expanded as much as possible. Grow that and the entire business grows with it.
I ask again. What set it at 20Gb/s per satellite? Why not just add more chips or transistors or whatever the applicable hardware is called and make it 1Tb/s per satellite?
The demand is clearly there. All they need is limitless bandwidth to start printing money.
Great video of Tom and Gwynne.
I think Starlink is going to be a bigger business, much bigger than people thing. That it's going to be multiple hundreds of billions.
And that is what is going to drive Starship development, they need Starship to deploy enough satellites in enough time.
It's going to be a very exciting couple of years.
To me it all comes down to the bandwidth capacity per satellite. Clearly this is the limiting factor which needs to be expanded as much as possible. Grow that and the entire business grows with it.
I ask again. What set it at 20Gb/s per satellite? Why not just add more chips or transistors or whatever the applicable hardware is called and make it 1Tb/s per satellite?
The demand is clearly there. All they need is limitless bandwidth to start printing money.
What a pairing. Azure is giving AWS a run for its money of late. Perfect triangulation by SpaceX.
What a pairing. Azure is giving AWS a run for its money of late. Perfect triangulation by SpaceX.
Great video of Tom and Gwynne.
I think Starlink is going to be a bigger business, much bigger than people thing. That it's going to be multiple hundreds of billions.
And that is what is going to drive Starship development, they need Starship to deploy enough satellites in enough time.
It's going to be a very exciting couple of years.
What a pairing. Azure is giving AWS a run for its money of late. Perfect triangulation by SpaceX.
Also MSFT has $143B in cash. They could invest in Starlink too. They wanted a satellite network in the 90's too.
I wonder what the initial contact was. SpaceX astroturfing the datacenters?
Or was Microsoft already aware of some of the advantages?
Great video of Tom and Gwynne.
I think Starlink is going to be a bigger business, much bigger than people thing. That it's going to be multiple hundreds of billions.
And that is what is going to drive Starship development, they need Starship to deploy enough satellites in enough time.
It's going to be a very exciting couple of years.
To me it all comes down to the bandwidth capacity per satellite. Clearly this is the limiting factor which needs to be expanded as much as possible. Grow that and the entire business grows with it.
I ask again. What set it at 20Gb/s per satellite? Why not just add more chips or transistors or whatever the applicable hardware is called and make it 1Tb/s per satellite?
The demand is clearly there. All they need is limitless bandwidth to start printing money.
What a pairing. Azure is giving AWS a run for its money of late. Perfect triangulation by SpaceX.
It's a match made in the heavens... ;D
I wonder what the initial contact was. SpaceX astroturfing the datacenters?
Or was Microsoft already aware of some of the advantages?
Great video of Tom and Gwynne.
I think Starlink is going to be a bigger business, much bigger than people thing. That it's going to be multiple hundreds of billions.
And that is what is going to drive Starship development, they need Starship to deploy enough satellites in enough time.
It's going to be a very exciting couple of years.
To me it all comes down to the bandwidth capacity per satellite. Clearly this is the limiting factor which needs to be expanded as much as possible. Grow that and the entire business grows with it.
I ask again. What set it at 20Gb/s per satellite? Why not just add more chips or transistors or whatever the applicable hardware is called and make it 1Tb/s per satellite?
The demand is clearly there. All they need is limitless bandwidth to start printing money.
SL produces zero revenue until essentially most of the satellites are on orbit. Also, the FCC's spectrum rules create a deadline for orbiting the entire constellation.
Orbiting thousands of sats requires lots of launches; close to the maximum of what's possible to launch in the specified timeframe. So right now, a minimum sized satellite makes sense to fill up the initial version of SL.
Also, that sat design is far from perfected, so quick, cheap, minimal versions make sense.
The limiting factor is frequency.Great video of Tom and Gwynne.
I think Starlink is going to be a bigger business, much bigger than people thing. That it's going to be multiple hundreds of billions.
And that is what is going to drive Starship development, they need Starship to deploy enough satellites in enough time.
It's going to be a very exciting couple of years.
To me it all comes down to the bandwidth capacity per satellite. Clearly this is the limiting factor which needs to be expanded as much as possible. Grow that and the entire business grows with it.
I ask again. What set it at 20Gb/s per satellite? Why not just add more chips or transistors or whatever the applicable hardware is called and make it 1Tb/s per satellite?
The demand is clearly there. All they need is limitless bandwidth to start printing money.
I know, right?
And why settle for laptops that have 4 cores? They'd be so much faster if they had, like, 200 cores! Just start making them, and you'd be printing money! Just add whatever chips or transistors are needed.
Seriously, what advantage would you gain by putting all the hardware for 1 Tbs into a single satellite, instead of putting it into 50 different satellites?
Great video of Tom and Gwynne.
I think Starlink is going to be a bigger business, much bigger than people thing. That it's going to be multiple hundreds of billions.
And that is what is going to drive Starship development, they need Starship to deploy enough satellites in enough time.
It's going to be a very exciting couple of years.
To me it all comes down to the bandwidth capacity per satellite. Clearly this is the limiting factor which needs to be expanded as much as possible. Grow that and the entire business grows with it.
I ask again. What set it at 20Gb/s per satellite? Why not just add more chips or transistors or whatever the applicable hardware is called and make it 1Tb/s per satellite?
The demand is clearly there. All they need is limitless bandwidth to start printing money.
SL produces zero revenue until essentially most of the satellites are on orbit. Also, the FCC's spectrum rules create a deadline for orbiting the entire constellation.
Orbiting thousands of sats requires lots of launches; close to the maximum of what's possible to launch in the specified timeframe. So right now, a minimum sized satellite makes sense to fill up the initial version of SL.
Also, that sat design is far from perfected, so quick, cheap, minimal versions make sense.
I don't see how it could be true that most of the satellites need to be on orbit.
With just over 800 satellites in target orbits they should have continuous coverage for various areas.
That's a good fraction of their initial sats in that orbit. The continuous coverage area is quite small compared to the final coverage area. I intentionally said "most of the satellites" -- so if you want to quibble that 800 + however many more get launched before revenue arrives isn't "most", I'm fine with that.
None of that materially impacts the point that there are several great reasons to be launching a minimal viable product satellite NOW.
Well, of course, you can increase the S/N of the single connection by increasing the aperture size, increasing the power, or reducing the noise of the transmitter and receiver (i.e. by cooling or whatever).The limiting factor is frequency.Great video of Tom and Gwynne.
I think Starlink is going to be a bigger business, much bigger than people thing. That it's going to be multiple hundreds of billions.
And that is what is going to drive Starship development, they need Starship to deploy enough satellites in enough time.
It's going to be a very exciting couple of years.
To me it all comes down to the bandwidth capacity per satellite. Clearly this is the limiting factor which needs to be expanded as much as possible. Grow that and the entire business grows with it.
I ask again. What set it at 20Gb/s per satellite? Why not just add more chips or transistors or whatever the applicable hardware is called and make it 1Tb/s per satellite?
The demand is clearly there. All they need is limitless bandwidth to start printing money.
I know, right?
And why settle for laptops that have 4 cores? They'd be so much faster if they had, like, 200 cores! Just start making them, and you'd be printing money! Just add whatever chips or transistors are needed.
Seriously, what advantage would you gain by putting all the hardware for 1 Tbs into a single satellite, instead of putting it into 50 different satellites?
For a single location on Earth and a single sat it is more likely a total bandwidth of 3+GB/s (2 frequencies * 2 circular polarizations * connection S/N bit efficiencies * 1Gb/s). And no amount of additions of capabilities on the sat will change that unless more frequencies are allocated (not likely).
But more sats all in view of a single location can each be communicated with simultaneously. With 4K number of sats, that could be easily 30+ sats. So that gives from a single location on Earth a total throughput of 100Gb/s. Increase the number of sats to 40,000 and it becomes 1Tb/s.
So from any point on Earth to any other point on Earth like with Azure Gold Cloud sites it could be an interconnect of 1Tb/s for each site no matter where they are.
With 800 being less than 20% of the initial constellation, I'm going with not anywhere close to 'most'.
With 800 being less than 20% of the initial constellation, I'm going with not anywhere close to 'most'.
1. Around the 53rd parallel.... and up to some 700Miles North... and a fair way south, there is already a heady concentration of satellites, due to the shape of th4 orbit... and how its near parallel ... to the 53rd parallel ;D .... So the capability for a rollout, and high bandwidth is already there on the satellite side.... but without ISL, and so far no ground stations in Canada (unless they are hiding under an anonymous name!). For Canada or North US, it doesn't matter if coverage is thin and gappy in Texas or Mexico! For Canada it seems nearly ready to market!
And the same goes for the UK Sweden, New Zeeland etc. So REVENUE could start flowing properly in under a year!
2. I thought the talk was smarmy, and sycophantic... They just repeated that ms "infrastructure", and SX connections will work well together. Thats obvious... no need to say it 20 times. However one interesting points was: The way they spoke seemed to imply ISLinks, (without a timeframe).... although the "you don't need fibre" comment could be interpreted as businesses don't need a fibre connection to their premises rather than anywhere!
It gave the impression of an internet backbone independent of country boundaries .... which is imaginary as most countries will expect to monitor internet communications etc, as the UK, US, China.... etc do at present.
3. I think its probably good that SX and ms are working together on this. No one said it was exclusive....
It was a short but interesting interview. One of the things I got out of it is along the lines of your point #1, Azure will be able to start rolling out very soon, with Starlink reportedly starting commercial before the end of the year.
Shotwell did not discuss what specific role Microsoft will play in the SDA program. SpaceX is vertically integrated and does not work with many subcontractors. According to an industry source, SpaceX was interested in Microsoft Azure’s orbital emulator — a digital environment that allows the user to visualize an entire satellite architecture, test satellite designs and artificial intelligence algorithms.
The orbital emulator “conducts massive satellite constellation simulations with software and hardware in the loop,” according to a Microsoft blog post. “This allows satellite developers to evaluate and train AI algorithms and satellite networking before ever launching a single satellite.”
What a pairing. Azure is giving AWS a run for its money of late. Perfect triangulation by SpaceX.
What a pairing. Azure is giving AWS a run for its money of late. Perfect triangulation by SpaceX.
How does that jive with large amount of Google investment in SpaceX (ostensibly for Starlink), and the recent job ads for satellite partner management? AWS/Bezos has the whole stack from rocket to sats to cloud to cloud services. Microsoft has a lot of government contracts with Azure, but they have no rocket nor sats. Google has cloud (GCP) and cloud services (specifically the android ecosystem) but no rocket or sats. Plus there is always the dark horse of Apple and the iPhone ecosystem.
Like everything else having to do with space and life in general, it's all about tradeoffs. More bandwidth would demand more power. Bigger PV. Bigger heat problem. Heavier satellite. Fewer per launch. Longer to deploy. Potential to miss FCC benchmarks to keep the license.Great video of Tom and Gwynne.
I think Starlink is going to be a bigger business, much bigger than people thing. That it's going to be multiple hundreds of billions.
And that is what is going to drive Starship development, they need Starship to deploy enough satellites in enough time.
It's going to be a very exciting couple of years.
To me it all comes down to the bandwidth capacity per satellite. Clearly this is the limiting factor which needs to be expanded as much as possible. Grow that and the entire business grows with it.
I ask again. What set it at 20Gb/s per satellite? Why not just add more chips or transistors or whatever the applicable hardware is called and make it 1Tb/s per satellite?
The demand is clearly there. All they need is limitless bandwidth to start printing money.
A few launches back we were told that there were a few ISL's in the mix. Have we heard anything since? Is there a possibility that some or all the latest sats have ISL?With 800 being less than 20% of the initial constellation, I'm going with not anywhere close to 'most'.
1. Around the 53rd parallel.... and up to some 700Miles North... and a fair way south, there is already a heady concentration of satellites, due to the shape of th4 orbit... and how its near parallel ... to the 53rd parallel ;D .... So the capability for a rollout, and high bandwidth is already there on the satellite side.... but without ISL, and so far no ground stations in Canada (unless they are hiding under an anonymous name!). For Canada or North US, it doesn't matter if coverage is thin and gappy in Texas or Mexico! For Canada it seems nearly ready to market!
And the same goes for the UK Sweden, New Zeeland etc. So REVENUE could start flowing properly in under a year!
2. I thought the talk was smarmy, and sycophantic... They just repeated that ms "infrastructure", and SX connections will work well together. Thats obvious... no need to say it 20 times. However one interesting points was: The way they spoke seemed to imply ISLinks, (without a timeframe).... although the "you don't need fibre" comment could be interpreted as businesses don't need a fibre connection to their premises rather than anywhere!
It gave the impression of an internet backbone independent of country boundaries .... which is imaginary as most countries will expect to monitor internet communications etc, as the UK, US, China.... etc do at present.
3. I think its probably good that SX and ms are working together on this. No one said it was exclusive....
A few launches back we were told that there were a few ISL's in the mix. Have we heard anything since? Is there a possibility that some or all the latest sats have ISL?
How are they recognized?A few launches back we were told that there were a few ISL's in the mix. Have we heard anything since? Is there a possibility that some or all the latest sats have ISL?
They would most likely be visible if they were on the sats closest to the camera.
What a pairing. Azure is giving AWS a run for its money of late. Perfect triangulation by SpaceX.
How does that jive with large amount of Google investment in SpaceX (ostensibly for Starlink), and the recent job ads for satellite partner management? AWS/Bezos has the whole stack from rocket to sats to cloud to cloud services. Microsoft has a lot of government contracts with Azure, but they have no rocket nor sats. Google has cloud (GCP) and cloud services (specifically the android ecosystem) but no rocket or sats. Plus there is always the dark horse of Apple and the iPhone ecosystem.
Like everything else having to do with space and life in general, it's all about tradeoffs. More bandwidth would demand more power. Bigger PV. Bigger heat problem. Heavier satellite. Fewer per launch. Longer to deploy. Potential to miss FCC benchmarks to keep the license.Great video of Tom and Gwynne.
I think Starlink is going to be a bigger business, much bigger than people thing. That it's going to be multiple hundreds of billions.
And that is what is going to drive Starship development, they need Starship to deploy enough satellites in enough time.
It's going to be a very exciting couple of years.
To me it all comes down to the bandwidth capacity per satellite. Clearly this is the limiting factor which needs to be expanded as much as possible. Grow that and the entire business grows with it.
I ask again. What set it at 20Gb/s per satellite? Why not just add more chips or transistors or whatever the applicable hardware is called and make it 1Tb/s per satellite?
The demand is clearly there. All they need is limitless bandwidth to start printing money.
In Elon's ever lovin style, field a good enough product and use it for training wheels for the next iteration. Build market share. Build the next generation with more refinement and bandwidth. Repeat as necessary.
The average engineer would never field a gizmo if they had their way. There's always another sub gizmo that needs optimizing. Elon does not have this mindset. He's looking for 'good enough'.
What would be needed to have a larger downlink capacity? Laserlink and downlink capacity would enable high data rate point to point data transfer.Laser Links have this one major drawback when used to do sat to ground links. A single sat device can only connect to a single ground device at a time. A single RF sat device can link to multiple ground devices simultaneously. So Laser Links to the ground are a very specific case usage.
What would be needed to have a larger downlink capacity? Laserlink and downlink capacity would enable high data rate point to point data transfer.Laser Links have this one major drawback when used to do sat to ground links. A single sat device can only connect to a single ground device at a time. A single RF sat device can link to multiple ground devices simultaneously. So Laser Links to the ground are a very specific case usage.
It is not the ground equipment that is the issue but the sat equipment. If the current usage is to use all the RF bandwidth for one Gateway connection. Then substituting or augmenting with a Laser Link makes sense. Only one or two (backup) lasers links would be needed to do the same. But sats need to smoothly transition between gateways so they need to be able to link to 2 gateways at a time. If the same protocol is used with Laser Links it is manageable but would need ~3 Laser Links (1 spare) to do the same as a single Phased array.What would be needed to have a larger downlink capacity? Laserlink and downlink capacity would enable high data rate point to point data transfer.Laser Links have this one major drawback when used to do sat to ground links. A single sat device can only connect to a single ground device at a time. A single RF sat device can link to multiple ground devices simultaneously. So Laser Links to the ground are a very specific case usage.
That's really not a drawback for gateway communications. Their current antennas on the sats for gateway communications are parabolic dishes, not ESA.
It is not the ground equipment that is the issue but the sat equipment. If the current usage is to use all the RF bandwidth for one Gateway connection. Then substituting or augmenting with a Laser Link makes sense. Only one or two (backup) lasers links would be needed to do the same. But sats need to smoothly transition between gateways so they need to be able to link to 2 gateways at a time. If the same protocol is used with Laser Links it is manageable but would need ~3 Laser Links (1 spare) to do the same as a single Phased array.What would be needed to have a larger downlink capacity? Laserlink and downlink capacity would enable high data rate point to point data transfer.Laser Links have this one major drawback when used to do sat to ground links. A single sat device can only connect to a single ground device at a time. A single RF sat device can link to multiple ground devices simultaneously. So Laser Links to the ground are a very specific case usage.
That's really not a drawback for gateway communications. Their current antennas on the sats for gateway communications are parabolic dishes, not ESA.
Thanks. Which definitely limits to a likely 2 gateway connections.It is not the ground equipment that is the issue but the sat equipment. If the current usage is to use all the RF bandwidth for one Gateway connection. Then substituting or augmenting with a Laser Link makes sense. Only one or two (backup) lasers links would be needed to do the same. But sats need to smoothly transition between gateways so they need to be able to link to 2 gateways at a time. If the same protocol is used with Laser Links it is manageable but would need ~3 Laser Links (1 spare) to do the same as a single Phased array.What would be needed to have a larger downlink capacity? Laserlink and downlink capacity would enable high data rate point to point data transfer.Laser Links have this one major drawback when used to do sat to ground links. A single sat device can only connect to a single ground device at a time. A single RF sat device can link to multiple ground devices simultaneously. So Laser Links to the ground are a very specific case usage.
That's really not a drawback for gateway communications. Their current antennas on the sats for gateway communications are parabolic dishes, not ESA.
The current sats are not using phased arrays for gateway communications.
Laser Links have this one major drawback when used to do sat to ground links. A single sat device can only connect to a single ground device at a time. A single RF sat device can link to multiple ground devices simultaneously. So Laser Links to the ground are a very specific case usage.
The current sats are not using phased arrays for gateway communications.
The current sats are not using phased arrays for gateway communications.
I don't understand this. A gateway link should be just like having a whole bunch of endpoints in one place. If the traffic in the area supports it, you can dedicate one or more spot beams to the gateway, and then share other spot beams amongst the regular customers in the area.
I don't think you can ever use lasers to the ground; their ability to penetrate atmospheric conditions is too iffy.
And lasers don't like cloud coverWhat would be needed to have a larger downlink capacity? Laserlink and downlink capacity would enable high data rate point to point data transfer.Laser Links have this one major drawback when used to do sat to ground links. A single sat device can only connect to a single ground device at a time. A single RF sat device can link to multiple ground devices simultaneously. So Laser Links to the ground are a very specific case usage.
The gateway links are strictly point to point. Even at f/.5 their coverage area would be much more limited than a phased array and their electronics may not be designed to discombobulate multiple feeds. There is probably a fine balance between total end user bandwidth and gateway bandwidth.The current sats are not using phased arrays for gateway communications.
I don't understand this. A gateway link should be just like having a whole bunch of endpoints in one place. If the traffic in the area supports it, you can dedicate one or more spot beams to the gateway, and then share other spot beams amongst the regular customers in the area.
I don't think you can ever use lasers to the ground; their ability to penetrate atmospheric conditions is too iffy.
With four gateway antennas, two working links and two setting up for a handoff. A little bit of engineering juju during handoff and there's no bandwidth violations.Thanks. Which definitely limits to a likely 2 gateway connections.It is not the ground equipment that is the issue but the sat equipment. If the current usage is to use all the RF bandwidth for one Gateway connection. Then substituting or augmenting with a Laser Link makes sense. Only one or two (backup) lasers links would be needed to do the same. But sats need to smoothly transition between gateways so they need to be able to link to 2 gateways at a time. If the same protocol is used with Laser Links it is manageable but would need ~3 Laser Links (1 spare) to do the same as a single Phased array.What would be needed to have a larger downlink capacity? Laserlink and downlink capacity would enable high data rate point to point data transfer.Laser Links have this one major drawback when used to do sat to ground links. A single sat device can only connect to a single ground device at a time. A single RF sat device can link to multiple ground devices simultaneously. So Laser Links to the ground are a very specific case usage.
That's really not a drawback for gateway communications. Their current antennas on the sats for gateway communications are parabolic dishes, not ESA.
The current sats are not using phased arrays for gateway communications.
They only have to track a couple gateways at once, and handoff between then every few minutes. The steering requirements probably aren't enough to overcome the drawbacks of the electronically steered array. It's a very different set of requirements than the user spot beams, and mechanically-steered parabolic dishes make a lot of sense there.
The gateway links are strictly point to point. Even at f/.5 their coverage area would be much more limited than a phased array and their electronics may not be designed to discombobulate multiple feeds. There is probably a fine balance between total end user bandwidth and gateway bandwidth.
There are two dishes on each satellite for communicating with the gateways over Ka-band. The user terminals communicate with the satellite over Ku-band frequencies.
Gongora posted this pic awhile back. Four dishes. If the sat is acting like a relay (pre ISL) it needs to bridge between two ground gateways (two antennas) and be setting up for each link to handoff to another gateway (two more antennas).They only have to track a couple gateways at once, and handoff between then every few minutes. The steering requirements probably aren't enough to overcome the drawbacks of the electronically steered array. It's a very different set of requirements than the user spot beams, and mechanically-steered parabolic dishes make a lot of sense there.
OK, I understand. It's basically a way to get one additional really narrow coverage area, with very low contention.
This still sounds really painful to me. That dish is going to be moving 24/7/365 for five years. Not only that, but a reaction wheel is going to soaking up its angular momentum 24/7/365. Sounds like a high-runner single point of failure.
Are there two dishes on each satellite? You could make do with one, but the procedure for switching over to a new gateway would get weird.
There are two dishes on each satellite for communicating with the gateways over Ka-band. The user terminals communicate with the satellite over Ku-band frequencies.Um, uh, that pic you posted the other day showed three parabolic dishes on three corners of a starlink. The fourth corner was not in the pic and I assumed it had a dish too. So, if two dishes are Ka band for gateways, what are the other 1-2?
There are two dishes on each satellite for communicating with the gateways over Ka-band. The user terminals communicate with the satellite over Ku-band frequencies.Um, uh, that pic you posted the other day showed three parabolic dishes on three corners of a starlink. The fourth corner was not in the pic and I assumed it had a dish too. So, if two dishes are Ka band for gateways, what are the other 1-2?
This is why I've been thinking that part of the OSI stack will need to be custom. As a sat starts reaching the end of its useful range for a particular end user it will need to tell the end users hardware to start transmitting to another sat but to keep listening for a while in case there are packets in transit that didn't get the memo. Gateway connections will face the same issues.There are two dishes on each satellite for communicating with the gateways over Ka-band. The user terminals communicate with the satellite over Ku-band frequencies.
So when a gateway either goes offline or falls too far up-range, the dish assigned to it should find the furthest accessible gateway down-range, and the other dish handles all of the traffic until the other one is back up.
Terminals are going to experience a large number of router flaps, because they have to re-home to the next bird coming overhead. But the consequences of those flaps (out-of-order packets being the worst) can be minimized if the birds route the same flows to the same gateways.
I think that implies that, as a gateway falls too far up-range for a bird to use, it should release all the terminals being routed through that gateway, forcing them to re-bind to the next bird up-range. That bird will likely have the same gateway bound, so the flow shouldn't experience any out-of-order packets.
This is why I've been thinking that part of the OSI stack will need to be custom. As a sat starts reaching the end of its useful range for a particular end user it will need to tell the end users hardware to start transmitting to another sat but to keep listening for a while in case there are packets in transit that didn't get the memo. Gateway connections will face the same issues.There are two dishes on each satellite for communicating with the gateways over Ka-band. The user terminals communicate with the satellite over Ku-band frequencies.
So when a gateway either goes offline or falls too far up-range, the dish assigned to it should find the furthest accessible gateway down-range, and the other dish handles all of the traffic until the other one is back up.
Terminals are going to experience a large number of router flaps, because they have to re-home to the next bird coming overhead. But the consequences of those flaps (out-of-order packets being the worst) can be minimized if the birds route the same flows to the same gateways.
I think that implies that, as a gateway falls too far up-range for a bird to use, it should release all the terminals being routed through that gateway, forcing them to re-bind to the next bird up-range. That bird will likely have the same gateway bound, so the flow shouldn't experience any out-of-order packets.
This most logically fits into MAC function. It's literally a 'sliding window' problem with a twist. From a ground point of view it's a fixed window (let's ignore mobile users) with sats sliding into and out of the window. From the sats point of view the window is sliding to expose new connections while loosing others. Logically they are very similar.
Let's ignore gateway connections as the connection issues are similar, maybe simpler, and independent from the bandwidth carried.
Each sat has a customer load that changes over time. The following sat, or one a few slots back, needs to know what customers load it's about to receive, and just as important, needs a fairly good idea where to aim the beam.
The initial hookup will be a delicate process if the sat has to spread a wide low gain beam trying to find the end user. Much better to have a good idea where to aim and with only a little beam spread and little loss of gain, nail it and get down to work. If a pass off needs geographical data, why not make long/lat an appendage to the MAC address?
The geographic modeling software is a done thing. I'd be dumbfounded if there weren't libraries, maybe open source. A GPS for the customer hardware is trivial. What's hard is how a brand new end user would get hooked up the very first time. How would the sat know where to aim? How would the terminal know where to look for a sat?
The only thing I can come up with is a beacon signal put out by the ground equipment spread wide enough to have a high probability of snagging a sat at any time.
On the sat end a beam doing scans looking for beacon signals. The beam width and gain would be limited by the number of antenna elements that can be dedicated to this. Beacon signals would always be at a set frequency with no hopping and the sat is always looking.
When the sat picks up a beacon it can throw more elements into the beam to pin a rough position for the beacon and raise gain enough to upload exact position and download an updated sat ephemeris if necessary. At that point the link can move over to he general comms band and the search array can continue looking for beacons.
This could be made to work as a pass off protocol but I think it would be inefficient in many ways. Better to keep it strictly for first contact. The only question I have is, would it work?
Some portion of usable license bandwidth would need to be dedicated. More important, some portion of antenna bandwidth would have to be dedicated. Could his be kept to acceptable limits while still having enough antenna gain to pick up a pizza antenna smearing a beacon over a largish piece of the sky?
Edit1 to correct fat thumb effect
Edit 2 to correct fat brain effect
It's called the Better Than Nothing Beta.
- Estimated speeds 50Mbps to 150Mbps
- Estimated latency 20ms to 40ms
- Some interruptions in connectivity to be expected
- $499 for the phased array antenna and router
- $99 per month subscription
There's no NDA or any disclaimer about public details in the email and ToS, so I'm pretty sure this is safe to share.
EDIT: Since people are asking, there's no mention of data caps.
A few redditors have received public/paid beta invitesQuoteIt's called the Better Than Nothing Beta.
- Estimated speeds 50Mbps to 150Mbps
- Estimated latency 20ms to 40ms
- Some interruptions in connectivity to be expected
- $499 for the phased array antenna and router
- $99 per month subscription
There's no NDA or any disclaimer about public details in the email and ToS, so I'm pretty sure this is safe to share.
EDIT: Since people are asking, there's no mention of data caps.
Reddit link (https://reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jitefj/i_just_officially_received_an_email_invite_to_the/)
A few redditors have received public/paid beta invitesQuoteIt's called the Better Than Nothing Beta.
- Estimated speeds 50Mbps to 150Mbps
- Estimated latency 20ms to 40ms
- Some interruptions in connectivity to be expected
- $499 for the phased array antenna and router
- $99 per month subscription
There's no NDA or any disclaimer about public details in the email and ToS, so I'm pretty sure this is safe to share.
EDIT: Since people are asking, there's no mention of data caps.
Reddit link (https://reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jitefj/i_just_officially_received_an_email_invite_to_the/)
$99 a month!! That will have to come way down if they ever want to be competitive in Europe. My broadband (averages 110 Mbit/s and <10 ms ping), TV and phone combined is Ł45 and didn't cost me anything to have installed.
$99 a month!! That will have to come way down if they ever want to be competitive in Europe. My broadband (averages 110 Mbit/s and <10 ms ping), TV and phone combined is Ł45 and didn't cost me anything to have installed.For the one thousanth time: If you've got an ISP to complain about, starlink isn't for you.
$99 a month!! That will have to come way down if they ever want to be competitive in Europe. My broadband (averages 110 Mbit/s and <10 ms ping), TV and phone combined is Ł45 and didn't cost me anything to have installed.For the one thousanth time: If you've got an ISP to complain about, starlink isn't for you.
Starlink is for people wishing they had an ISP to complain about.
$99 a month!! That will have to come way down if they ever want to be competitive in Europe. My broadband (averages 110 Mbit/s and <10 ms ping), TV and phone combined is Ł45 and didn't cost me anything to have installed.
$99 a month!! That will have to come way down if they ever want to be competitive in Europe. My broadband (averages 110 Mbit/s and <10 ms ping), TV and phone combined is Ł45 and didn't cost me anything to have installed.
If you already have cheap broadband, why on earth would you want Starlink???
$99 a month!! That will have to come way down if they ever want to be competitive in Europe. My broadband (averages 110 Mbit/s and <10 ms ping), TV and phone combined is Ł45 and didn't cost me anything to have installed.
If you already have cheap broadband, why on earth would you want Starlink???
$99/mo for 100 Mbps with low latency is entirely competitive for millions of people who are using cellular, GEO satellite, or DSL connections.
It's even pretty competitive with my Spectrum cable connection, which is currently running 45/10 Mbps with 13 ms.
$99 a month!! That will have to come way down if they ever want to be competitive in Europe. My broadband (averages 110 Mbit/s and <10 ms ping), TV and phone combined is Ł45 and didn't cost me anything to have installed.
If you already have cheap broadband, why on earth would you want Starlink???
$99/mo for 100 Mbps with low latency is entirely competitive for millions of people who are using cellular, GEO satellite, or DSL connections.
It's even pretty competitive with my Spectrum cable connection, which is currently running 45/10 Mbps with 13 ms.
To help make the Mars dream true. Don't see many other options to do that.
I wish the schedule was a little firmer. I'm looking at some pretty remote places when I get booted from my current nest, but am a little tired of 600k internet.
Have they given anything on rollout of regular service at various latitudes?
I wish the schedule was a little firmer. I'm looking at some pretty remote places when I get booted from my current nest, but am a little tired of 600k internet.
Have they given anything on rollout of regular service at various latitudes?
They say "near global coverage of the populated world by 2021" on the website. Haven't seen anything more specific than that.
I wish the schedule was a little firmer. I'm looking at some pretty remote places when I get booted from my current nest, but am a little tired of 600k internet.
Have they given anything on rollout of regular service at various latitudes?
Attempt number two to say I don't believe in the slightest that the off the grid market is anywhere near enough to recoup the cost of Starlink. Let's see if it gets deleted this time. Apparently criticism of Starlink is verboten.
There was absolutely no rudeness in my post, but in the interest of not derailing the thread I won't get into that.Attempt number two to say I don't believe in the slightest that the off the grid market is anywhere near enough to recoup the cost of Starlink. Let's see if it gets deleted this time. Apparently criticism of Starlink is verboten.
Your first attempt was rude enough to get canned.
Attempt number two to say I don't believe in the slightest that the off the grid market is anywhere near enough to recoup the cost of Starlink. Let's see if it gets deleted this time. Apparently criticism of Starlink is verboten.
Attempt number two to say I don't believe in the slightest that the off the grid market is anywhere near enough to recoup the cost of Starlink. Let's see if it gets deleted this time. Apparently criticism of Starlink is verboten.
A new report estimates there are 42.8 million people in the US without broadband access, nearly twice the official estimate reached by the Federal Communication Commission. The report was conducted by BroadbandNow, a company that helps consumers check their area for broadband availability. In its 2019 report, the FCC estimated only 21.3 million Americans lacked broadband access.
Gotta update those Bayesian priors about whether SpaceX will succeed in its most lofty goals.
It’s interesting that SpaceX is already receiving money from regular consumers for Starlink. They already have enough satellites launched to service the whole CONUS (although not yet in position). About a thousand satellites. The Minimum Viable Product is basically complete.
SpaceX beat OneWeb to initial operations, something few "serious" folk thought realistic 3-5 years ago. With more satellites already launched than even Teledesic's grand plans in the 1990s.
Gotta update those Bayesian priors about whether SpaceX will succeed in its most lofty goals.
Fiber at the highest end will still be tough (I have 100Mbps fiber, which Starlink could do now in some cases, but you can get 1Gbps fiber, which will take until next-gen Starlink) but Starlink will be roughly comparable to 5G.Gotta update those Bayesian priors about whether SpaceX will succeed in its most lofty goals.
People who suggested a few years ago that Starlink wouldn't be competitive with fiber or 5G were treated like heretics. Time to update those Bayesian priors.
Any schedule for the higher inclinations? That will be when airlines and military really takes off.
Fiber at the highest end will still be tough (I have 100Mbps fiber, which Starlink could do now in some cases, but you can get 1Gbps fiber, which will take until next-gen Starlink) but Starlink will be roughly comparable to 5G.Gotta update those Bayesian priors about whether SpaceX will succeed in its most lofty goals.
People who suggested a few years ago that Starlink wouldn't be competitive with fiber or 5G were treated like heretics. Time to update those Bayesian priors.
Fiber at the highest end will still be tough (I have 100Mbps fiber, which Starlink could do now in some cases, but you can get 1Gbps fiber, which will take until next-gen Starlink) but Starlink will be roughly comparable to 5G.Gotta update those Bayesian priors about whether SpaceX will succeed in its most lofty goals.
People who suggested a few years ago that Starlink wouldn't be competitive with fiber or 5G were treated like heretics. Time to update those Bayesian priors.
At those prices they can only compete in very remote places, at least in my country, which isn't cheap.
Which is ok. Just saying that some people had different expectations.
Attempt number two to say I don't believe in the slightest that the off the grid market is anywhere near enough to recoup the cost of Starlink. Let's see if it gets deleted this time. Apparently criticism of Starlink is verboten.
SpaceX nicknamed the Starlink user terminals "Dishy McFlatface," per the official installation guidelines:
Thinking about the UK... Scotland, Wales, the countryside...
Will it be officially permitted to share Starlink .... and/or would that be a different cost.
Even shared between 2 dwellings it suddenly reasonable. Often larger houses are converted into 2,3 or 4 flats. Many what were "council houses" are in blocks of 2, 3, 0r 4, short terraces. All these lend themselves to 1 Starlink, and wifi repeaters!
(I think SX should sell multi subscriber packs, with included repeaters etc)
But $99 is currently Ł76, ... well what were we expecting, maybe Ł50 at the lowest. A Ł16 premium is nothing for excellent service and bandwidth. Some mobile contracts stray up above Ł60 for the latest phones and unlimited bandwidth.
So For anyone remote, unless they are poor, it is excellent value, and affordable. And if you can share with a neighbour or two its outstanding.
I continue to think that a Starlink backhaul for a 4G or 5G pico- or micro-cell is a killer product offering, either via SpaceX or via a local telco. Village-level connectivity via Starlink sounds like a no-brainer to me.Maybe larger than pico cells. I've thought of telcos leasing circuits. It would be a heck of a lot cheaper and a heck of a lot better service to remote areas and disaster sites than they have now. There are still large mountainous areas of West Virginia with no service of any kind.
For educational purposes, here are contemporary quotes from ViaSat and HughesNet. Installation(from memory) tends to be cheaper than $500 (if they charge at all). I'm curious what kind of commitment comes attached to the $500 up front fee.You forgot to post the part where the equipment runs $300 if you don't go with the long term contract.
For educational purposes, here are contemporary quotes from ViaSat and HughesNet. Installation(from memory) tends to be cheaper than $500 (if they charge at all). I'm curious what kind of commitment comes attached to the $500 up front fee.I see. So Starlink will suck up virtually all their customers at those prices. Those companies each make about $2 billion in revenue apiece.
Reading some of the comments by the so called experts on twitter, the knee jerk criticism seems to be that $99 a month does not bring internet to the masses.
Well, hang on, why do they think Starlink is some kind of humanitarian charity with the primary goal of connecting the masses?
It is a business, with a primary goal of making money to fund Mars colonization. If that connects “some” of the rural population as a consequence, that is just a bonus.
10% of the rural market still brings in massive revenue for SpaceX. Mission accomplished.
Fiber at the highest end will still be tough (I have 100Mbps fiber, which Starlink could do now in some cases, but you can get 1Gbps fiber, which will take until next-gen Starlink) but Starlink will be roughly comparable to 5G.Gotta update those Bayesian priors about whether SpaceX will succeed in its most lofty goals.
People who suggested a few years ago that Starlink wouldn't be competitive with fiber or 5G were treated like heretics. Time to update those Bayesian priors.
At those prices they can only compete in very remote places, at least in my country, which isn't cheap.
Which is ok. Just saying that some people had different expectations.
Twitter takes on Starlink are mostly complete trash, and including by a lot of people who ought to know better. And don’t you dare call them out on it, or they’ll block you.
$99 for low latency internet like you can almost only get near cities is a steal. This is the early days, too.
I continue to think that a Starlink backhaul for a 4G or 5G pico- or micro-cell is a killer product offering, either via SpaceX or via a local telco. Village-level connectivity via Starlink sounds like a no-brainer to me.Maybe larger than pico cells. I've thought of telcos leasing circuits. It would be a heck of a lot cheaper and a heck of a lot better service to remote areas and disaster sites than they have now. There are still large mountainous areas of West Virginia with no service of any kind.
It would have to be the telcos offering the phone service. They can't even give you an internet circuit based femto-cell for your home unless they already have the authority to offer phone service in that location.
My last job was bringing comms to disaster sites. I think it's a good thing I retired before Starlink is fully functional. I'm not sure what trailer loads of Satellite, radio, network and telephone gear would have been good for if somebody could just slap up a dish with telco microcells and wfi routers attached.
Twitter takes on Starlink are mostly complete trash, and including by a lot of people who ought to know better. And don’t you dare call them out on it, or they’ll block you.
$99 for low latency internet like you can almost only get near cities is a steal. This is the early days, too.
For educational purposes, here are contemporary quotes from ViaSat and HughesNet. Installation(from memory) tends to be cheaper than $500 (if they charge at all). I'm curious what kind of commitment comes attached to the $500 up front fee.I see. So Starlink will suck up virtually all their customers at those prices. Those companies each make about $2 billion in revenue apiece.
SpaceX is gonna make SO much money...
(Notice the HughesNet one requires a 24 month commitment, and the prices for the other one are only for the first 3 months...)
...
At those prices they can only compete in very remote places, at least in my country, which isn't cheap.
Which is ok. Just saying that some people had different expectations.
This pricing is very RDOF-friendly. If Starlink wins any zip codes in this week's auction, it can just subtract the subsidy from the bills in those zip codes. The net pricing should be very competitive even with urban broadband prices in those instances.
On another forum (yes there are other forums, but none as good as NSF!) we were looking at Starlink for marine use. The general consensus is that the market is about 250K vessels that would jump on Starlink at these prices and would even tolerate a doubling of the price.
Also most yachts/boats when the reach a destination also go an buy local sims so that they can use for internet access. These can vary in price from $20/month to $100/month and the coverage can still be spotty.
snip...But with boats, the yacht harbour will likely provide WIFI, or even buy it from Starlink, as a commercial multi-user package.... which would of course then be given a relatively guaranteed connection. Individual boaters would then use their own out at sea, or in other anchorages, and smaller harbours etc. Do we have any idea if Starlink will cope with the antenna rocking about in a small yacht, or whether it will need some kind of stabilization? My guess would be that even the fastest boat motion is slow compared with network operation, and the worst problem will be a few dropped packets, and so maybe degraded speed, but I'm just guessing.
One important note is that due to the relatively low bandwidth density on the ground, mobile Starlink connections will probably either heavily limit you or just cut you off if you get too close (~5km or so, probably) of a dense city. Simply because it would be flatly impossible for the system to serve all the boats anchored at the LA marina at the same time. So a mobile Starlink dish would give you a great connection when you are not port, but unless you are in the sticks would not replace that local sim.
No Tommyboy.$99 a month!! That will have to come way down if they ever want to be competitive in Europe. My broadband (averages 110 Mbit/s and <10 ms ping), TV and phone combined is Ł45 and didn't cost me anything to have installed.For the one thousanth time: If you've got an ISP to complain about, starlink isn't for you.
Starlink is for people wishing they had an ISP to complain about.
Exactly.
Starlink is intended for those areas where people have no access to fiber optic networks, no acces to cable and no acces to 4G or 5G cell phone networks.
I live in one of the most densely populated countries in the world (the Netherlands), as does Tommyboy. But even here there are areas were the only internet infrastructure is a lousy ISDN line. In my hometown we have the whole works available: cable, fiber optic, 4G AND 5G. But if I drive just 3 kilometers beyond city limits than there is no cable, no fiber optic network, lousy 4G coverage and NO 5G coverage.
Lot's of farmers reside there and they very much ARE interested in Starlink. And they will probably be willing to pay the hefty $99 monthly subscription just to get up to speed (literally).
You think that maybe they could release the App to the public so potential users could check to make sure they have a sufficient view of the sky before they spring for the expensive equipment?
I'm pretty sure Starlink is going to be rationing access to their service in the not too distant future. There are a limited number of accounts that they can support within a circle of a given diameter. I don't know what that number is but I suspect it's relatively modest.
How are they going to decide who gets it? Even at $99 per month in the US, there will be places where they have to tell people willing to pay that price that, no, they can't do it, because they are oversubscribed in that region.
For educational purposes, here are contemporary quotes from ViaSat and HughesNet. Installation(from memory) tends to be cheaper than $500 (if they charge at all). I'm curious what kind of commitment comes attached to the $500 up front fee.
They don't need to. When you sign up for the service it asks for the location for the equipment. So at least for static installations that's already taken care of.
They don't support mobile (trucks/trains/boats/planes) yet so I expect they will have a different signup process in place once they support these uses.You think that maybe they could release the App to the public so potential users could check to make sure they have a sufficient view of the sky before they spring for the expensive equipment?
How the heck would that be ethically wrong?? It’s a limited resource. Reserving it only for a handful of early adopters who have the privilege of signing up early and squatting on their Starlink connection is not *more* ethical.I'm pretty sure Starlink is going to be rationing access to their service in the not too distant future. There are a limited number of accounts that they can support within a circle of a given diameter. I don't know what that number is but I suspect it's relatively modest.
How are they going to decide who gets it? Even at $99 per month in the US, there will be places where they have to tell people willing to pay that price that, no, they can't do it, because they are oversubscribed in that region.
The ethics-free approach to solving this problem is to place no limit on the number of people that can subscribe. As more and more subscribe, service gets worse and worse, and at some point you reach an equilibrium. The only people who would subscribe in a big city are those willing to pay $99 per month for poor, overloaded service.
Then you tweak the price up and down to find the price that maximizes revenue.
For anyone who has a conscience, that might not be the best approach, of course.
I'm pretty sure Starlink is going to be rationing access to their service in the not too distant future. There are a limited number of accounts that they can support within a circle of a given diameter. I don't know what that number is but I suspect it's relatively modest.
How are they going to decide who gets it? Even at $99 per month in the US, there will be places where they have to tell people willing to pay that price that, no, they can't do it, because they are oversubscribed in that region.
The ethics-free approach to solving this problem is to place no limit on the number of people that can subscribe. As more and more subscribe, service gets worse and worse, and at some point you reach an equilibrium. The only people who would subscribe in a big city are those willing to pay $99 per month for poor, overloaded service.
Then you tweak the price up and down to find the price that maximizes revenue.
For anyone who has a conscience, that might not be the best approach, of course.
I'm pretty sure Starlink is going to be rationing access to their service in the not too distant future. There are a limited number of accounts that they can support within a circle of a given diameter. I don't know what that number is but I suspect it's relatively modest.
How are they going to decide who gets it? Even at $99 per month in the US, there will be places where they have to tell people willing to pay that price that, no, they can't do it, because they are oversubscribed in that region.
The ethics-free approach to solving this problem is to place no limit on the number of people that can subscribe. As more and more subscribe, service gets worse and worse, and at some point you reach an equilibrium. The only people who would subscribe in a big city are those willing to pay $99 per month for poor, overloaded service.
Then you tweak the price up and down to find the price that maximizes revenue.
For anyone who has a conscience, that might not be the best approach, of course.
What impact will the de-orbiting of thousands of satellites have on the atmosphere?
"it's not that the pollution and impact is small, it's that it's insignificantly small; it's not that it's less than other things, but that it's multiple orders of magnitude less than other things"
...
"Averaging it over the total mass of the troposphere is not useful as this is not where satellites burn up. Secondly, trace gases can have a major impact (see CFCs) even when their concentration is in the parts per billion range, so you need to look at what materials end up in the upper atmosphere due to satellites burning, rather than total mass"
It will provide internet to 45 families in early 2021, and an additional 90 families later on. The families will not pay for the internet access.https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-free-internet-texas-satellite-2020-10
The families will get the internet for free. Ector County Independent School District (ECISD) is paying SpaceX $300,000 per year, with $150,000 of that coming from a nonprofit.
Pricing for institutions...QuoteIt will provide internet to 45 families in early 2021, and an additional 90 families later on. The families will not pay for the internet access.https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-free-internet-texas-satellite-2020-10
The families will get the internet for free. Ector County Independent School District (ECISD) is paying SpaceX $300,000 per year, with $150,000 of that coming from a nonprofit.
$300,000/(135) = $2222 per year = $185 per month.
Regarding "demand at a given location", I'd say region, not location. Satellite footprints are hundred kilometres wide.
A ship in the middle of North Sea could compete with London, Amsterdam and Hamburg for capacity.
If SpaceX will maximize revenues, connectivity for rural areas could became expensive just because they have a big urban area at less than 500km where people wants Starlink because is cool or for backup or just to win online multiplayer games.
One use case that I haven't seen mentioned is scientific research connectivity for field data. Once the service covers a large enough portion of the US/World, field researchers can buy Starlink units and setup field data collection nets. ...
Regarding "demand at a given location", I'd say region, not location. Satellite footprints are hundred kilometres wide.you are right about the satellite footprint, 45 degrees, gives 1000Km wide swathe (+/- 550Km), but London etc at 51.5 degrees North, will already have dense coverage. This is because each orbital plane effectively "bunches up" approaching 53 degrees.
A ship in the middle of North Sea could compete with London, Amsterdam and Hamburg for capacity
If SpaceX will maximize revenues, connectivity for rural areas could became expensive just because they have a big urban area at less than 500km where people wants Stariink because is cool or for backup or just to win online multiplayer games.
"Forgot"For educational purposes, here are contemporary quotes from ViaSat and HughesNet. Installation(from memory) tends to be cheaper than $500 (if they charge at all). I'm curious what kind of commitment comes attached to the $500 up front fee.You forgot to post the part where the equipment runs $300 if you don't go with the long term contract.
For educational purposes, here are contemporary quotes from ViaSat and HughesNet. Installation(from memory) tends to be cheaper than $500 (if they charge at all). I'm curious what kind of commitment comes attached to the $500 up front fee.
My god the amount of fine print and footnotes on those infographics is downright criminal. And they don't even mention latency, which is arguably Starlink's greatest advantage. Also, 15 hours of streaming video advertised in the base package... Is that per month? Hopefully your kids don't try to update Fortnite across a couple devices and wipe you out before the end of the day.
I'd bet that was flat out wrong (No..Not Business Insider!!) and that was for the first year, equipment included. And 135 families might not mean 135 user terminals. Like you said, it's vague and from a source as unreliable as they get.Pricing for institutions...QuoteIt will provide internet to 45 families in early 2021, and an additional 90 families later on. The families will not pay for the internet access.https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-free-internet-texas-satellite-2020-10
The families will get the internet for free. Ector County Independent School District (ECISD) is paying SpaceX $300,000 per year, with $150,000 of that coming from a nonprofit.
$300,000/(135) = $2222 per year = $185 per month.
We really don't know what the pricing is for that. There are some vague numbers that may or may not only be for the Starlink program.
I'd bet that was flat out wrong (No..Not Business Insider!!) and that was for the first year, equipment included. And 135 families might not mean 135 user terminals. Like you said, it's vague and from a source as unreliable as they get.Pricing for institutions...QuoteIt will provide internet to 45 families in early 2021, and an additional 90 families later on. The families will not pay for the internet access.https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-free-internet-texas-satellite-2020-10
The families will get the internet for free. Ector County Independent School District (ECISD) is paying SpaceX $300,000 per year, with $150,000 of that coming from a nonprofit.
$300,000/(135) = $2222 per year = $185 per month.
We really don't know what the pricing is for that. There are some vague numbers that may or may not only be for the Starlink program.
The venture is the result of a partnership of ECISD, Chiefs for Change, a national philanthropic organization, PSP and SpaceX. The cost is $300,000 and Chiefs for Change provided $150,000.https://www.oaoa.com/news/education/ecisd/ecisd-to-pilot-spacex-internet/article_3b32150c-1317-11eb-9437-afc9d3113db1.html
“Superintendent Scott Muri and the team in Ector County are pursuing some of the most innovative plans in thehttps://www.ectorcountyisd.org//cms/lib/TX50000506/Centricity/Domain/2300/ECISD%20partnership%20to%20bring%20SpaceX%20satellite%20Internet%20to%20students2020.pdf
country to meet the challenges of the coronavirus pandemic and redesign schools for 21st-century learning,” said
Chiefs for Change CEO Mike Magee. “Given Dr. Muri’s creative and forward-looking approach, it’s only natural that
he would partner with SpaceX and use satellites to get students the home Wi-Fi they wouldn’t otherwise have. We
are proud that he is a member of Chiefs for Change and are pleased to provide $150,000 for this and other internet
connectivity projects in the district.”
It looks like that source said $300,000, not $300,000 a year. Adding those two words is a prime example of what I'm talking about.I'd bet that was flat out wrong (No..Not Business Insider!!) and that was for the first year, equipment included. And 135 families might not mean 135 user terminals. Like you said, it's vague and from a source as unreliable as they get.Pricing for institutions...QuoteIt will provide internet to 45 families in early 2021, and an additional 90 families later on. The families will not pay for the internet access.https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-free-internet-texas-satellite-2020-10
The families will get the internet for free. Ector County Independent School District (ECISD) is paying SpaceX $300,000 per year, with $150,000 of that coming from a nonprofit.
$300,000/(135) = $2222 per year = $185 per month.
We really don't know what the pricing is for that. There are some vague numbers that may or may not only be for the Starlink program.
The original source for the $300,000 figure is the Odessa American - a local newspaper.QuoteThe venture is the result of a partnership of ECISD, Chiefs for Change, a national philanthropic organization, PSP and SpaceX. The cost is $300,000 and Chiefs for Change provided $150,000.https://www.oaoa.com/news/education/ecisd/ecisd-to-pilot-spacex-internet/article_3b32150c-1317-11eb-9437-afc9d3113db1.html
The contribution from Chiefs for Change is corroborated by the ECISD website. There currently is no second source for the overall cost.Quote“Superintendent Scott Muri and the team in Ector County are pursuing some of the most innovative plans in thehttps://www.ectorcountyisd.org//cms/lib/TX50000506/Centricity/Domain/2300/ECISD%20partnership%20to%20bring%20SpaceX%20satellite%20Internet%20to%20students2020.pdf
country to meet the challenges of the coronavirus pandemic and redesign schools for 21st-century learning,” said
Chiefs for Change CEO Mike Magee. “Given Dr. Muri’s creative and forward-looking approach, it’s only natural that
he would partner with SpaceX and use satellites to get students the home Wi-Fi they wouldn’t otherwise have. We
are proud that he is a member of Chiefs for Change and are pleased to provide $150,000 for this and other internet
connectivity projects in the district.”
If the $300,000 is the cost for the school district is correct, it is possible that the school district could save ~$70,000 in its first year by going through the public beta and reimbursing internet costs.
I'd bet that was flat out wrong (No..Not Business Insider!!) and that was for the first year, equipment included. And 135 families might not mean 135 user terminals. Like you said, it's vague and from a source as unreliable as they get.Pricing for institutions...QuoteIt will provide internet to 45 families in early 2021, and an additional 90 families later on. The families will not pay for the internet access.https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-free-internet-texas-satellite-2020-10
The families will get the internet for free. Ector County Independent School District (ECISD) is paying SpaceX $300,000 per year, with $150,000 of that coming from a nonprofit.
$300,000/(135) = $2222 per year = $185 per month.
We really don't know what the pricing is for that. There are some vague numbers that may or may not only be for the Starlink program.
The original source for the $300,000 figure is the Odessa American - a local newspaper.QuoteThe venture is the result of a partnership of ECISD, Chiefs for Change, a national philanthropic organization, PSP and SpaceX. The cost is $300,000 and Chiefs for Change provided $150,000.https://www.oaoa.com/news/education/ecisd/ecisd-to-pilot-spacex-internet/article_3b32150c-1317-11eb-9437-afc9d3113db1.html
The contribution from Chiefs for Change is corroborated by the ECISD website. There currently is no second source for the overall cost.Quote“Superintendent Scott Muri and the team in Ector County are pursuing some of the most innovative plans in thehttps://www.ectorcountyisd.org//cms/lib/TX50000506/Centricity/Domain/2300/ECISD%20partnership%20to%20bring%20SpaceX%20satellite%20Internet%20to%20students2020.pdf
country to meet the challenges of the coronavirus pandemic and redesign schools for 21st-century learning,” said
Chiefs for Change CEO Mike Magee. “Given Dr. Muri’s creative and forward-looking approach, it’s only natural that
he would partner with SpaceX and use satellites to get students the home Wi-Fi they wouldn’t otherwise have. We
are proud that he is a member of Chiefs for Change and are pleased to provide $150,000 for this and other internet
connectivity projects in the district.”
If the $300,000 is the cost for the school district and is correct, it is possible that the school district could save ~$70,000 in its first year by going through the public beta and reimbursing internet costs.
Trade Laws:https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/
You must comply with all applicable International Trade Controls in the context of these Terms, which means applicable export control, economic sanctions, customs/import, anti-money laundering, and anti-corruption laws and regulations. You acknowledge that you are only authorized to access Services at the location identified on your Order, and you will not divert the Starlink Kit or Services to any other locations, or to users or for uses that are prohibited under International Trade Controls.
The "within 12 months" part seems strange. You'd think they'd rather get the gear back than have somebody sell it on ebay.QuoteTrade Laws:https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/
You must comply with all applicable International Trade Controls in the context of these Terms, which means applicable export control, economic sanctions, customs/import, anti-money laundering, and anti-corruption laws and regulations. You acknowledge that you are only authorized to access Services at the location identified on your Order, and you will not divert the Starlink Kit or Services to any other locations, or to users or for uses that are prohibited under International Trade Controls.
It appears that you "own" the starlink kit, but it is non-transferrable under the EULA. Only way you can get your money back or any use out of it is subscribing to SpaceX's service or returning it to SpaceX within 12 months for a portion of your purchase price (linear depreciation from $500 to $0 over 12 months, subject to a SpaceX defined material change to service).
One use case that I haven't seen mentioned is scientific research connectivity for field data. Once the service covers a large enough portion of the US/World, field researchers can buy Starlink units and setup field data collection nets. ...
I listened to a presentation earlier in the year from someone working with the oil & gas exploration industry. They mentioned using Starlink with parabolic dishes instead of the consumer user terminals to get higher performance. There will end up being multiple ways to connect to the network. The consumer user terminals are optimizing for cost and ease of use.
Where do you see that written in your quoted text? As far as I read it, it just states "Only use it at home, don't go dragging it with you when you go camping". Also, no selling to ITC prohibited users, so if OBinLJr has the winning bid on ebay, you have to reject his bid.QuoteTrade Laws:https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/
You must comply with all applicable International Trade Controls in the context of these Terms, which means applicable export control, economic sanctions, customs/import, anti-money laundering, and anti-corruption laws and regulations. You acknowledge that you are only authorized to access Services at the location identified on your Order, and you will not divert the Starlink Kit or Services to any other locations, or to users or for uses that are prohibited under International Trade Controls.
It appears that you "own" the starlink kit, but it is non-transferrable under the EULA. Only way you can get your money back or any use out of it is subscribing to SpaceX's service or returning it to SpaceX within 12 months for a portion of your purchase price (linear depreciation from $500 to $0 over 12 months, subject to a SpaceX defined material change to service).
The "within 12 months" part seems strange. You'd think they'd rather get the gear back than have somebody sell it on ebay.QuoteTrade Laws:https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/
You must comply with all applicable International Trade Controls in the context of these Terms, which means applicable export control, economic sanctions, customs/import, anti-money laundering, and anti-corruption laws and regulations. You acknowledge that you are only authorized to access Services at the location identified on your Order, and you will not divert the Starlink Kit or Services to any other locations, or to users or for uses that are prohibited under International Trade Controls.
It appears that you "own" the starlink kit, but it is non-transferrable under the EULA. Only way you can get your money back or any use out of it is subscribing to SpaceX's service or returning it to SpaceX within 12 months for a portion of your purchase price (linear depreciation from $500 to $0 over 12 months, subject to a SpaceX defined material change to service).
You are liable for any charges or fees incurred by the use of the Services and Starlink Kit by anyone else.https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/
Moved the Mars discussion to Will the U.S. have control over Musk's Mars colony? (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48712.0)Thanks!
Keep in mind this is still just the Beta terms of service.
The "within 12 months" part seems strange. You'd think they'd rather get the gear back than have somebody sell it on ebay.QuoteTrade Laws:https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/
You must comply with all applicable International Trade Controls in the context of these Terms, which means applicable export control, economic sanctions, customs/import, anti-money laundering, and anti-corruption laws and regulations. You acknowledge that you are only authorized to access Services at the location identified on your Order, and you will not divert the Starlink Kit or Services to any other locations, or to users or for uses that are prohibited under International Trade Controls.
It appears that you "own" the starlink kit, but it is non-transferrable under the EULA. Only way you can get your money back or any use out of it is subscribing to SpaceX's service or returning it to SpaceX within 12 months for a portion of your purchase price (linear depreciation from $500 to $0 over 12 months, subject to a SpaceX defined material change to service).
Don't sell it on eBay...QuoteYou are liable for any charges or fees incurred by the use of the Services and Starlink Kit by anyone else.https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/
If they were able to get it to work, you might get the bill. And it breaks the diversion clause in the ToS by shipping it to another address. In reality, if you shut off service on the website or otherwise, it probably just becomes a door stop or paper weight (possibly a pizza serving plate). SpaceX will probably offer to buy the equipment back, as return of equipment doesn't seem to be required, but that aspect doesn't necessarily have to be in the ToS.
I'm not sure what SpaceXs long term plans are, but for a very long time I had the privilege of paying a monthly rental fee for my equipment from Spectrum; so the $500 initial cost doesn't even cause me to blink since after a few years I'd paid more than that and owned exactly nothing. Lots of broadband options where I live, but I'm always happy to see more competition.The flip side of that is my cable modem took a lightning hit (rental for $8/mo) and the small regional ISP swapped it out no questions asked.
Probably more than $10/month. That a 4 year payback. My $8/mo cable modem goes for under $100. One year payback.Twitter takes on Starlink are mostly complete trash, and including by a lot of people who ought to know better. And don’t you dare call them out on it, or they’ll block you.
$99 for low latency internet like you can almost only get near cities is a steal. This is the early days, too.
I paid about $100/mo for a terrestrial microwave system in the middle of nowhere, and got decent latency but usually no more than about 4Mbps. $99/mo sounds about right, at least for a beta in the States.
However, the $500 up-front sounds like something that will only persist through the beta. When they go to market for real, they'll give you a $10/mo lease on the equipment in exchange for a mandatory contract length, just like the mobile phone and satellite TV companies do.
Does anybody know how the Navy deals with this? I'd hate to have my Aegis loose an incoming sea skimmer because of rough seas.snip...But with boats, the yacht harbour will likely provide WIFI, or even buy it from Starlink, as a commercial multi-user package.... which would of course then be given a relatively guaranteed connection. Individual boaters would then use their own out at sea, or in other anchorages, and smaller harbours etc. Do we have any idea if Starlink will cope with the antenna rocking about in a small yacht, or whether it will need some kind of stabilization? My guess would be that even the fastest boat motion is slow compared with network operation, and the worst problem will be a few dropped packets, and so maybe degraded speed, but I'm just guessing.
One important note is that due to the relatively low bandwidth density on the ground, mobile Starlink connections will probably either heavily limit you or just cut you off if you get too close (~5km or so, probably) of a dense city. Simply because it would be flatly impossible for the system to serve all the boats anchored at the LA marina at the same time. So a mobile Starlink dish would give you a great connection when you are not port, but unless you are in the sticks would not replace that local sim.
Edit: I've not been reading the Starlink Network Protocols thread, but could the packet size diminish for users where the connection is frequently interrupted... as in the antenna swings out of line of the satellite altogether?
Again, that doesn't forbid you from selling your terminal. What that line says is "It's not SpaceX's problem if you get your dish stolen and then the thief exceeds yours data cap. Or if you attach a public hotspot to it, somebody torrents half of the internet, and the MPAA/RIAA comes knocking at your door. 'It wasn't me' is not a valid excuse to not having to pay overages. The dish was attached to your active account, so it's your problem." (And yes, I know that the current offering doesn't have a data cap, but future offerings might)
It's akin to bait and switch. You buy a connection expecting a certain speed. Then the speed goes to crap and it still costs the same. This is why people dislike their service providers now.How the heck would that be ethically wrong?? It’s a limited resource. Reserving it only for a handful of early adopters who have the privilege of signing up early and squatting on their Starlink connection is not *more* ethical.I'm pretty sure Starlink is going to be rationing access to their service in the not too distant future. There are a limited number of accounts that they can support within a circle of a given diameter. I don't know what that number is but I suspect it's relatively modest.
How are they going to decide who gets it? Even at $99 per month in the US, there will be places where they have to tell people willing to pay that price that, no, they can't do it, because they are oversubscribed in that region.
The ethics-free approach to solving this problem is to place no limit on the number of people that can subscribe. As more and more subscribe, service gets worse and worse, and at some point you reach an equilibrium. The only people who would subscribe in a big city are those willing to pay $99 per month for poor, overloaded service.
Then you tweak the price up and down to find the price that maximizes revenue.
For anyone who has a conscience, that might not be the best approach, of course.
Are we just not going to mention that the Starlink terms of service require acknowledging the political autonomy of Mars?Whooooo. Ye-Haw! There seems to be a slight conflict with the Outer Space Treaty. Of course having a law and enforcing it are two different things.
“ In the Starlink terms of service, you have to agree that “no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities.””
https://mobile.twitter.com/elidourado/status/1321276558456295425 (https://mobile.twitter.com/elidourado/status/1321276558456295425)
Does anybody know how the Navy deals with this? I'd hate to have my Aegis loose an incoming sea skimmer because of rough seas.snip...But with boats, the yacht harbour will likely provide WIFI, or even buy it from Starlink, as a commercial multi-user package.... which would of course then be given a relatively guaranteed connection. Individual boaters would then use their own out at sea, or in other anchorages, and smaller harbours etc. Do we have any idea if Starlink will cope with the antenna rocking about in a small yacht, or whether it will need some kind of stabilization? My guess would be that even the fastest boat motion is slow compared with network operation, and the worst problem will be a few dropped packets, and so maybe degraded speed, but I'm just guessing.
One important note is that due to the relatively low bandwidth density on the ground, mobile Starlink connections will probably either heavily limit you or just cut you off if you get too close (~5km or so, probably) of a dense city. Simply because it would be flatly impossible for the system to serve all the boats anchored at the LA marina at the same time. So a mobile Starlink dish would give you a great connection when you are not port, but unless you are in the sticks would not replace that local sim.
Edit: I've not been reading the Starlink Network Protocols thread, but could the packet size diminish for users where the connection is frequently interrupted... as in the antenna swings out of line of the satellite altogether?
It's akin to bait and switch. You buy a connection expecting a certain speed. Then the speed goes to crap and it still costs the same. This is why people dislike their service providers now.How the heck would that be ethically wrong?? It’s a limited resource. Reserving it only for a handful of early adopters who have the privilege of signing up early and squatting on their Starlink connection is not *more* ethical.I'm pretty sure Starlink is going to be rationing access to their service in the not too distant future. There are a limited number of accounts that they can support within a circle of a given diameter. I don't know what that number is but I suspect it's relatively modest.
How are they going to decide who gets it? Even at $99 per month in the US, there will be places where they have to tell people willing to pay that price that, no, they can't do it, because they are oversubscribed in that region.
The ethics-free approach to solving this problem is to place no limit on the number of people that can subscribe. As more and more subscribe, service gets worse and worse, and at some point you reach an equilibrium. The only people who would subscribe in a big city are those willing to pay $99 per month for poor, overloaded service.
Then you tweak the price up and down to find the price that maximizes revenue.
For anyone who has a conscience, that might not be the best approach, of course.
From a business perspective, sometimes keeping your product a rarity adds value. Let StarLink be known as the company that actually delivers and potential customers will keep beating at the door. Let that reputation die and they're just another ISP and nobody will be salivating.
Keep bandwidth high and added sats or higher bandwidth sats will never need to drum up customers. They'll be waiting.
It might even help with the FCC when it's time to find more bandwidth.
Are we just not going to mention that the Starlink terms of service require acknowledging the political autonomy of Mars?Whooooo. Ye-Haw! There seems to be a slight conflict with the Outer Space Treaty. Of course having a law and enforcing it are two different things.
“ In the Starlink terms of service, you have to agree that “no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities.””
https://mobile.twitter.com/elidourado/status/1321276558456295425 (https://mobile.twitter.com/elidourado/status/1321276558456295425)
For something like Viasat marine, it's a 3-axis stabilized Ka-band antenna system housed inside a dome. That way it stays locked no matter what the boat underneath is doing (hopefully). But's it's a min $25K for the equipment.Viasat uses the same antennas just about any other Ka band provider does at sea. Lots of brands. They have extremely well balanced dishes inside that do a good job of staying pointed as the boat moves around. Since few boats can mount a dish with perfect sky coverage, a lot of them will have two. Good controllers will have blockages programmed in and switch dishes when the beam is about to hit one. The motors are tiny and only for small tracking adjustments or moving to a target. Balancing the dishes when you install or work on them is a real art form, and can make a big difference in performance. Funny you mentioned missile tracking, because Starlink dishes will probably work more like that than geo sat dishes since they're looking at moving targets. Just a different source for the signal you're tracking.Does anybody know how the Navy deals with this? I'd hate to have my Aegis loose an incoming sea skimmer because of rough seas.
One use case that I haven't seen mentioned is scientific research connectivity for field data. Once the service covers a large enough portion of the US/World, field researchers can buy Starlink units and setup field data collection nets. Working at a supercomputer center, we can certainly see the possibilities in creating faster and more reliable data paths for researchers to get their data back to us.A very mundane but prevalent data collection is waterway flow info. It's not uncommon to see sat yagi's on bridges in the Midwest. Very low data rates but the Corp of Engineers need all the help it can get.
Hmm, I guess that this use would also apply to anyone filming HD video streams for real time events in areas outside. If they need to upload those in real time, this will be a game changer. Timm Dodd (Everyday Astronaut) might be on the urgent list of customers for this... :)
Again, all of this is predicated on the idea that there is wide enough coverage, enough satellites to handle the traffic, and acceptance of limited mobility stations. Maybe by late next year?
Are we just not going to mention that the Starlink terms of service require acknowledging the political autonomy of Mars?Whooooo. Ye-Haw! There seems to be a slight conflict with the Outer Space Treaty. Of course having a law and enforcing it are two different things.
“ In the Starlink terms of service, you have to agree that “no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities.””
https://mobile.twitter.com/elidourado/status/1321276558456295425 (https://mobile.twitter.com/elidourado/status/1321276558456295425)
That's a not insignificant part of the reason why the Space Force has been created. It's ludicrous that people still think they are there to be perpetual satellite jockeys until the end of time. ???
What are the chances that the McPizza box is obsolescent in two years?The "within 12 months" part seems strange. You'd think they'd rather get the gear back than have somebody sell it on ebay.QuoteTrade Laws:https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/)
You must comply with all applicable International Trade Controls in the context of these Terms, which means applicable export control, economic sanctions, customs/import, anti-money laundering, and anti-corruption laws and regulations. You acknowledge that you are only authorized to access Services at the location identified on your Order, and you will not divert the Starlink Kit or Services to any other locations, or to users or for uses that are prohibited under International Trade Controls.
It appears that you "own" the starlink kit, but it is non-transferrable under the EULA. Only way you can get your money back or any use out of it is subscribing to SpaceX's service or returning it to SpaceX within 12 months for a portion of your purchase price (linear depreciation from $500 to $0 over 12 months, subject to a SpaceX defined material change to service).
Don't sell it on eBay...QuoteYou are liable for any charges or fees incurred by the use of the Services and Starlink Kit by anyone else.https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/)
If they were able to get it to work, you might get the bill. And it breaks the diversion clause in the ToS by shipping it to another address. In reality, if you shut off service on the website or otherwise, it probably just becomes a door stop or paper weight (possibly a pizza serving plate). SpaceX will probably offer to buy the equipment back, as return of equipment doesn't seem to be required, but that aspect doesn't necessarily have to be in the ToS.
Over subscription is a given. It can be controlled by limiting bandwidth per customer, limiting customers or both. Or you can jam in as many customers as possible and let nature and your reputation take its course.It's akin to bait and switch. You buy a connection expecting a certain speed. Then the speed goes to crap and it still costs the same. This is why people dislike their service providers now.How the heck would that be ethically wrong?? It’s a limited resource. Reserving it only for a handful of early adopters who have the privilege of signing up early and squatting on their Starlink connection is not *more* ethical.I'm pretty sure Starlink is going to be rationing access to their service in the not too distant future. There are a limited number of accounts that they can support within a circle of a given diameter. I don't know what that number is but I suspect it's relatively modest.
How are they going to decide who gets it? Even at $99 per month in the US, there will be places where they have to tell people willing to pay that price that, no, they can't do it, because they are oversubscribed in that region.
The ethics-free approach to solving this problem is to place no limit on the number of people that can subscribe. As more and more subscribe, service gets worse and worse, and at some point you reach an equilibrium. The only people who would subscribe in a big city are those willing to pay $99 per month for poor, overloaded service.
Then you tweak the price up and down to find the price that maximizes revenue.
For anyone who has a conscience, that might not be the best approach, of course.
From a business perspective, sometimes keeping your product a rarity adds value. Let StarLink be known as the company that actually delivers and potential customers will keep beating at the door. Let that reputation die and they're just another ISP and nobody will be salivating.
Keep bandwidth high and added sats or higher bandwidth sats will never need to drum up customers. They'll be waiting.
It might even help with the FCC when it's time to find more bandwidth.
Oversubscription is standard practice in the telecommunications industry; most users simply will not saturate a line at any given time and it is not possible to provide enough bandwidth to all prospective customers on the assumption that they will. Graceful degradation is a necessary part of the infrastructure. As the service evolves with successive satellite generations, its likely that they'll create increased beam steering capacity on future satellites so they can service the more saturated regions more effectively.
That is ... interesting.1) Antenna with Parabolic dish is more effective as FAR
I'm not sure why one would want a complex mechanical system that is constantly slewing instead of a digitally steerable array. Assuming you wanted a continuous connection, you'd need more than one parabolic dish.
This sounds implausible.
As I think you realize any location is covered by multiple footprints and the footprints are constantly moving. As long as a given location is always covered by at least one footprint that is undersubscribed, then the algorithm that sets the price for service at that location should set the price low. Thus although I don't know the details I suspect an oil platform in the North Sea will have always have multiple footprints from the north covering the platform that are barely being used.
Now a ship would be a different situation, because it moves, and it would probably be treated as a different category of service, but it could also be priced by the same logic, where the user doesn't pay a fixed charge per month, but rather by location and the percent of time spent at different locations.
But in any case there are no natural boundaries for regions, other than political, and that means the price should be set by location, since the overlap of footprints, and how subscribed each fleeting footprint is, should set the price.
If SpaceX will maximize revenues, connectivity for rural areas could became expensive just because they have a big urban area at less than 500km where people wants Starlink because is cool or for backup or just to win online multiplayer games.
This has been very much on my mind ever since I realized the implications of the limited capacity for each footprint. The problem is that you end up with people with no access to the internet, within a footprint, competing with people in the same footprint that have many alternatives and far more money.
This pricing is very RDOF-friendly. If Starlink wins any zip codes in this week's auction, it can just subtract the subsidy from the bills in those zip codes. The net pricing should be very competitive even with urban broadband prices in those instances.
That's not how RDOF works. The rules give you money for providing service that meets the minimum quality requirements for the tier at less than the rate of reasonably comparable service. There is no requirement whatsoever of passing that money on to the consumers, the ISP is supposed to just keep it and use it to build out their network. Or in the case of Starlink, use it to launch satellites I guess.
This pricing is very RDOF-friendly. If Starlink wins any zip codes in this week's auction, it can just subtract the subsidy from the bills in those zip codes. The net pricing should be very competitive even with urban broadband prices in those instances.
That's not how RDOF works. The rules give you money for providing service that meets the minimum quality requirements for the tier at less than the rate of reasonably comparable service. There is no requirement whatsoever of passing that money on to the consumers, the ISP is supposed to just keep it and use it to build out their network. Or in the case of Starlink, use it to launch satellites I guess.
No, there is no requirement or expectation to pass the subsidy along to the consumer. However, SpaceX might gain a bit of customer goodwill by having differing prices in RDOF-subsidized census blocks versus other census blocks.
That is ... interesting.1) Antenna with Parabolic dish is more effective as FAR
I'm not sure why one would want a complex mechanical system that is constantly slewing instead of a digitally steerable array. Assuming you wanted a continuous connection, you'd need more than one parabolic dish.
This sounds implausible.
2) 48 cm dish is to small and has small bit/Hz ratio - It is consumer product
3) In 2016 Space X in file for FCC said about 5 types user termial 2 with FAR and 3 with parabolic antenna with 1,2; 1,6 and 5 m dish . 1,2 m parabolic antenna wil have gain or 1,6 will be have a gain in 12 times more as user terminal
This pricing is very RDOF-friendly. If Starlink wins any zip codes in this week's auction, it can just subtract the subsidy from the bills in those zip codes. The net pricing should be very competitive even with urban broadband prices in those instances.
That's not how RDOF works. The rules give you money for providing service that meets the minimum quality requirements for the tier at less than the rate of reasonably comparable service. There is no requirement whatsoever of passing that money on to the consumers, the ISP is supposed to just keep it and use it to build out their network. Or in the case of Starlink, use it to launch satellites I guess.
No, there is no requirement or expectation to pass the subsidy along to the consumer. However, SpaceX might gain a bit of customer goodwill by having differing prices in RDOF-subsidized census blocks versus other census blocks.
There is a requirement to offer prices similar to equivalent services in more populated areas.
This pricing is very RDOF-friendly. If Starlink wins any zip codes in this week's auction, it can just subtract the subsidy from the bills in those zip codes. The net pricing should be very competitive even with urban broadband prices in those instances.
That's not how RDOF works. The rules give you money for providing service that meets the minimum quality requirements for the tier at less than the rate of reasonably comparable service. There is no requirement whatsoever of passing that money on to the consumers, the ISP is supposed to just keep it and use it to build out their network. Or in the case of Starlink, use it to launch satellites I guess.
No, there is no requirement or expectation to pass the subsidy along to the consumer. However, SpaceX might gain a bit of customer goodwill by having differing prices in RDOF-subsidized census blocks versus other census blocks.
There is a requirement to offer prices similar to equivalent services in more populated areas.
Right. So offering lower prices in RDOF-subsidized areas would certainly satisfy that requirement.
There is speculation some companies may try to use the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund to help fund their own low Earth orbit broadband networks. What’s your view?
From my perspective, the critical part of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, and any aspect of our Universal Service Fund for High Cost Areas auctions, is the fact that we are technologically neutral. That was an innovation we pioneered my second month in office: to open up these auctions to any company using any technology so long as they were able to meet our service thresholds and the build-out time frames that we specify.
When it comes to RDOF, one of the things we tweaked compared to the Connect America Fund Phase 2 is that we are putting our thumb on the scale in favor of faster speeds and lower latency while still maintaining that principle of technological neutrality. If any company, including the LEO constellation companies, want to compete at a certain service threshold and have demonstrated that they are able to do so, we want them to have a full and fair chance to compete.
I think that the LEO companies have a very interesting use case. I’ve seen parts of the country from above the Arctic Circle to rural areas in the Gulf Coast, and see there may be parts of the country where fiber deployment is infeasible for economic or terrain reasons. There may be other reasons why a space-based competitor might be the best option, so we want to give them a full and fair chance to compete.
Results from a StarLink beta tester in Washington state 🤯
"Streaming 1440p and 4K with zero buffering on YouTube."
reddit.com/r/Starlink/com…
Latency will improve significantly soon. Bandwidth too.
twitter.com/auchenberg/status/1322394959064883200QuoteResults from a StarLink beta tester in Washington state 🤯
"Streaming 1440p and 4K with zero buffering on YouTube."
reddit.com/r/Starlink/com…
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1322428850526105600QuoteLatency will improve significantly soon. Bandwidth too.
That is ... interesting.1) Antenna with Parabolic dish is more effective as FAR
I'm not sure why one would want a complex mechanical system that is constantly slewing instead of a digitally steerable array. Assuming you wanted a continuous connection, you'd need more than one parabolic dish.
This sounds implausible.
2) 48 cm dish is to small and has small bit/Hz ratio - It is consumer product
3) In 2016 Space X in file for FCC said about 5 types user termial 2 with FAR and 3 with parabolic antenna with 1,2; 1,6 and 5 m dish . 1,2 m parabolic antenna wil have gain or 1,6 will be have a gain in 12 times more as user terminal
The parabolic dish isn't inherently better at receiving, it's a function of the relative sizes.
I'm sure it's possible to have a slewing parabolic dish, but you haven't explained why this would be more practical than a phased array antenna .. particularly for acquiring a new sat every 5 minutes or so.
No, there is no requirement or expectation to pass the subsidy along to the consumer. However, SpaceX might gain a bit of customer goodwill by having differing prices in RDOF-subsidized census blocks versus other census blocks.
No, there is no requirement or expectation to pass the subsidy along to the consumer. However, SpaceX might gain a bit of customer goodwill by having differing prices in RDOF-subsidized census blocks versus other census blocks.
Do they have any need for extra customer goodwill, instead of just pocketing the money? As far as I can see, right now the reaction to Starlink in it's target market is pretty much: "please let me give money to you".
The RDOF is not meant to subsidize the rates of customers. It's meant to give out money to operators in exchange of expanding service. SpaceX using the RDOF award to discount rates instead of launching more satellites would be the exact opposite of how the money is supposed to be used, and would be completely pointless for SpaceX to do. Starlink is not a charity.
Dear Santa,
Please get me a Starlink for Christmas!. I've been a really good boy and deserve it.
Seriously though, that's really good. I would take a fraction of that performance and be happy.twitter.com/auchenberg/status/1322394959064883200QuoteResults from a StarLink beta tester in Washington state 🤯
"Streaming 1440p and 4K with zero buffering on YouTube."
reddit.com/r/Starlink/com…
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1322428850526105600QuoteLatency will improve significantly soon. Bandwidth too.
No, there is no requirement or expectation to pass the subsidy along to the consumer. However, SpaceX might gain a bit of customer goodwill by having differing prices in RDOF-subsidized census blocks versus other census blocks.
Do they have any need for extra customer goodwill, instead of just pocketing the money? As far as I can see, right now the reaction to Starlink in it's target market is pretty much: "please let me give money to you".
The RDOF is not meant to subsidize the rates of customers. It's meant to give out money to operators in exchange of expanding service. SpaceX using the RDOF award to discount rates instead of launching more satellites would be the exact opposite of how the money is supposed to be used, and would be completely pointless for SpaceX to do. Starlink is not a charity.
For something like Viasat marine, it's a 3-axis stabilized Ka-band antenna system housed inside a dome. That way it stays locked no matter what the boat underneath is doing (hopefully). But's it's a min $25K for the equipment.Viasat uses the same antennas just about any other Ka band provider does at sea. Lots of brands. They have extremely well balanced dishes inside that do a good job of staying pointed as the boat moves around. Since few boats can mount a dish with perfect sky coverage, a lot of them will have two. Good controllers will have blockages programmed in and switch dishes when the beam is about to hit one. The motors are tiny and only for small tracking adjustments or moving to a target. Balancing the dishes when you install or work on them is a real art form, and can make a big difference in performance. Funny you mentioned missile tracking, because Starlink dishes will probably work more like that than geo sat dishes since they're looking at moving targets. Just a different source for the signal you're tracking.Does anybody know how the Navy deals with this? I'd hate to have my Aegis loose an incoming sea skimmer because of rough seas.
Just don't buy Intellian, like certain barges did if you expect a lot of vibration.
In any case, it won't be the same for Starlink since they need faster target switching and acquiring than geo systems.
Twitter user https://twitter.com/AdvtrWithKramer has been posting some nice info about Starlink, from opening the box to realistic speed tests.
Also a lot of maritime GSO terminals home on beacon, that is, a continuous wave emitted that makes it easy to figure out slew based on differential signal strength. (Eg, it slews to max beacon signal strength). Not really feasible with a LEO sat. But, then again that degree of gain and hence pointing accuracy isn’t needed for a LEO sat either.Like techs who point fixed dishes properly, good marine dishes don't exactly look for max signal strength. They do a continuous dance around it in a kind of a daisy pattern, and bracket the signal. Signals vary too much to simply peak the dish.
Starlink *is* a cable competitor. The current batch of satellites (given another 10 Starlink launches) can serve about 1 million US customers. They want to increase the capacity of Starlink by about 30 times as many satellites beyond that, meaning they could serve about 30 million US customers. And that’s before upgrading the satellites themselves.
That’s comparable to Comcast, which has about 22 million broadband subscribers. Plus SpaceX can do that all around the world. Once you can serve 1 million US subscribers, you can probably serve 10 times as many customers globally.
With Starship, it’s not an exaggeration to say they could eventually reach hundreds of millions of subscribers globally.
That’s out of billions of broadband subscribers (by that time), so it’s not going to take over literally everything, but it’s way more scalable and will reach greater penetration than most assume. If Comcast insists on screwing over customers, they’ll have the option of using Starlink even if Starlink won’t be taking all their customers.
So it’ll be able to provide competitive pressure in every market they’re allowed to compete in.
Several thousand more Starlink beta participation invitations going out this week
Viasat-3 birds have 1Tbsp and are based on the Boeing 702 platform, weighing up to 6t, so it’s plausible Starlink satellites optimized for Starship could get to 1Tbps apiece as well. To be scalable to this degree will require lots of spatial multiplexing, but that’s feasible.
Starlink *is* a cable competitor. The current batch of satellites (given another 10 Starlink launches) can serve about 1 million US customers. They want to increase the capacity of Starlink by about 30 times as many satellites beyond that, meaning they could serve about 30 million US customers. And that’s before upgrading the satellites themselves.
That’s comparable to Comcast, which has about 29 million broadband subscribers. Plus SpaceX can do that all around the world. Once you can serve 1 million US subscribers, you can probably serve 10 times as many customers globally.
With Starship, it’s not an exaggeration to say they could eventually reach hundreds of millions of subscribers globally.
That’s out of billions of broadband subscribers (by that time), so it’s not going to take over literally everything, but it’s way more scalable and will reach greater penetration than most assume. If Comcast insists on screwing over customers, they’ll have the option of using Starlink even if Starlink won’t be taking all their customers.
So it’ll be able to provide competitive pressure in every market they’re allowed to compete in.
IR seeking missile sensors (not that far from microwave) run circles to zero onto max signal. Should be doable with phased arrayFor something like Viasat marine, it's a 3-axis stabilized Ka-band antenna system housed inside a dome. That way it stays locked no matter what the boat underneath is doing (hopefully). But's it's a min $25K for the equipment.Viasat uses the same antennas just about any other Ka band provider does at sea. Lots of brands. They have extremely well balanced dishes inside that do a good job of staying pointed as the boat moves around. Since few boats can mount a dish with perfect sky coverage, a lot of them will have two. Good controllers will have blockages programmed in and switch dishes when the beam is about to hit one. The motors are tiny and only for small tracking adjustments or moving to a target. Balancing the dishes when you install or work on them is a real art form, and can make a big difference in performance. Funny you mentioned missile tracking, because Starlink dishes will probably work more like that than geo sat dishes since they're looking at moving targets. Just a different source for the signal you're tracking.Does anybody know how the Navy deals with this? I'd hate to have my Aegis loose an incoming sea skimmer because of rough seas.
Just don't buy Intellian, like certain barges did if you expect a lot of vibration.
In any case, it won't be the same for Starlink since they need faster target switching and acquiring than geo systems.
Also a lot of maritime GSO terminals home on beacon, that is, a continuous wave emitted that makes it easy to figure out slew based on differential signal strength. (Eg, it slews to max beacon signal strength). Not really feasible with a LEO sat. But, then again that degree of gain and hence pointing accuracy isn’t needed for a LEO sat either.
Viasat-3 birds have 1Tbsp and are based on the Boeing 702 platform, weighing up to 6t, so it’s plausible Starlink satellites optimized for Starship could get to 1Tbps apiece as well. To be scalable to this degree will require lots of spatial multiplexing, but that’s feasible.
The ratio of dry mass will be even better, too.
A 6 tonne GEO sat will need ~44% of it's mass to be fuel to raise itself to geostationary. On-orbit mass for a 6,000kg sat deployed to GTO-1800 will be about 3,350kg.
Starlink sats probably only lose about 5kg getting themselves into orbit.
Each v1.0 satellite is about 20Gbps, and for 1600 of them, that's about 32Tbps. That works out to about a max of 1.28 million subscribers in the US, or roughly 1 million subscribers to use round numbers before major throttling (or upgrading of the network) is needed.
SpaceX has launched about 1000 satellites in just over a year, so it seems likely they'll have more capacity already in place before reaching 1 million subscribers.
I included that in my calculations above. Remember, satellites over the ocean, Canada, and Mexico can still be used for the US out to, say, a 45 degree angle (I don't remember what the FAA is allowing), so a rough outline of the continental US but expanded outward for 500km, and that nearly doubles the amount of area that is available. This is an even bigger effect for Hawaii and Puerto Rico and Guam and other US territories, especially as soon as inter-satellite-links are working.Each v1.0 satellite is about 20Gbps, and for 1600 of them, that's about 32Tbps. That works out to about a max of 1.28 million subscribers in the US, or roughly 1 million subscribers to use round numbers before major throttling (or upgrading of the network) is needed.
SpaceX has launched about 1000 satellites in just over a year, so it seems likely they'll have more capacity already in place before reaching 1 million subscribers.
I like your calculations, but there is a small problem, the territory of the United States (9.6 million km2 with Alaska is approximately 3.5% of the Earth territory between 53 parallels - 300 million km2.) Therefore, out of 1600 launched, only 40-50 can be used in the USA.
Each v1.0 satellite is about 20Gbps, and for 1600 of them, that's about 32Tbps. That works out to about a max of 1.28 million subscribers in the US, or roughly 1 million subscribers to use round numbers before major throttling (or upgrading of the network) is needed.
SpaceX has launched about 1000 satellites in just over a year, so it seems likely they'll have more capacity already in place before reaching 1 million subscribers.
I like your calculations, but there is a small problem, the territory of the United States (9.6 million km2 with Alaska is approximately 3.5% of the Earth territory between 53 parallels - 300 million km2.) Therefore, out of 1600 launched, only 40-50 can be used in the USA.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1323348268823314432SpaceX will hit 100,000 subscribers in no time (like, a few months), if they can manufacture the consumer hardware fast enough.QuoteSeveral thousand more Starlink beta participation invitations going out this week
I worry that some of these high numbers might cause problems later on when the reality sets in that once enough users get added in they will come down, not to mention that there is a certain max population density that can be served in an area. Starlink is still not a cable competitor, even if it looks somewhat like that here.A mitigating factor is that the areas that need access the most also have a low population density which goes to not saturating the sats. The easiest way to avoid JASIP (Just Another Shi**y Internet Provider) is to recognize the core constituency and stay with it until there is so much bandwidth deployed that competitive markets look ripe for the taking.
Expectations are going to need to be tempered again, I fear.
Betting on the man and his track record I look for more capable sats NLT late 2021. Just enough time for the engineers to get a feel for the v1.0 issues, pick among the already roughed in solutions, then get the manufacturing switched over. Rinse, repeat.Starlink *is* a cable competitor. The current batch of satellites (given another 10 Starlink launches) can serve about 1 million US customers. They want to increase the capacity of Starlink by about 30 times as many satellites beyond that, meaning they could serve about 30 million US customers. And that’s before upgrading the satellites themselves.
That’s comparable to Comcast, which has about 22 million broadband subscribers. Plus SpaceX can do that all around the world. Once you can serve 1 million US subscribers, you can probably serve 10 times as many customers globally.
With Starship, it’s not an exaggeration to say they could eventually reach hundreds of millions of subscribers globally.
That’s out of billions of broadband subscribers (by that time), so it’s not going to take over literally everything, but it’s way more scalable and will reach greater penetration than most assume. If Comcast insists on screwing over customers, they’ll have the option of using Starlink even if Starlink won’t be taking all their customers.
So it’ll be able to provide competitive pressure in every market they’re allowed to compete in.
I wouldn't be surprised for circa-2025 Starlink sats to be larger and perhaps have 100Gbps+ of throughput.
And more information from Musk. Didn't expect Norway, but I guess their filings there must have escaped our prying eyes.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1323360818336092167QuoteCanada and Norway are next after we get US out of early beta!
Viasat-3 birds have 1Tbsp and are based on the Boeing 702 platform, weighing up to 6t, so it’s plausible Starlink satellites optimized for Starship could get to 1Tbps apiece as well. To be scalable to this degree will require lots of spatial multiplexing, but that’s feasible.
The ratio of dry mass will be even better, too.
A 6 tonne GEO sat will need ~44% of it's mass to be fuel to raise itself to geostationary. On-orbit mass for a 6,000kg sat deployed to GTO-1800 will be about 3,350kg.
Starlink sats probably only lose about 5kg getting themselves into orbit.
The 44% number only applies to chemical propulsion GEO satellites - as such it is too broad. And you seem to be conflating initial on orbit mass with dry mass. Starlink satellites fuel requirements will probably be dominated by station keeping requirements at low altitude.
Viasat and Hughesnet together have like 1.5 million subscribers in the US. Starlink is gonna steal a good half of those and force Viasat and Hughesnet to drop their prices dramatically. These companies might go bankrupt.Half?
My guess is Viasat/Hughesnet might have to 1) go bankrupt and then 2) cut their prices to like $20-40/month. The satellites are still gonna be up there. Some people would choose lower cost.Viasat and Hughesnet together have like 1.5 million subscribers in the US. Starlink is gonna steal a good half of those and force Viasat and Hughesnet to drop their prices dramatically. These companies might go bankrupt.Half?
My guess is Viasat/Hughesnet might have to 1) go bankrupt and then 2) cut their prices to like $20-40/month. The satellites are still gonna be up there. Some people would choose lower cost.Viasat and Hughesnet together have like 1.5 million subscribers in the US. Starlink is gonna steal a good half of those and force Viasat and Hughesnet to drop their prices dramatically. These companies might go bankrupt.Half?
Hughesnet charges like $140-150/month for their 50GB tier which is still just 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up.Morgan Stanley last week said SX could be worth $100B, ie twice the valuation on their last raise.... due to Starlink: https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-doubles-value-to-100-billion-starlink/
Viasat and Hughesnet together have like 1.5 million subscribers in the US. Starlink is gonna steal a good half of those and force Viasat and Hughesnet to drop their prices dramatically. These companies might go bankrupt.
Already talked to a relative who lives in the rural Midwest and has signed up for the Starlink email. I think people are actually still underestimating Starlink’s pent-up demand.
Starlink is going to make SpaceX so much dang money. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if SpaceX is worth $400B 10 years from now (ie twice Comcast) due to their Starlink business.
I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if SpaceX is worth $400BTWO years from now! (my strikethrough!)10 years from now
Viasat-3 birds have 1Tbsp and are based on the Boeing 702 platform, weighing up to 6t, so it’s plausible Starlink satellites optimized for Starship could get to 1Tbps apiece as well. To be scalable to this degree will require lots of spatial multiplexing, but that’s feasible.
The ratio of dry mass will be even better, too.
A 6 tonne GEO sat will need ~44% of it's mass to be fuel to raise itself to geostationary. On-orbit mass for a 6,000kg sat deployed to GTO-1800 will be about 3,350kg.
Starlink sats probably only lose about 5kg getting themselves into orbit.
The 44% number only applies to chemical propulsion GEO satellites - as such it is too broad. And you seem to be conflating initial on orbit mass with dry mass. Starlink satellites fuel requirements will probably be dominated by station keeping requirements at low altitude.
The vast majority of GEO sats still use chemical propulsion for orbit raising, including pretty much all the satellites that weigh 6 tonnes or more at separation into GTO.
Both will generally use electric propulsion for station keeping, which has to last 15-20 years for the GEO sats compared with 5 for Starlink sats.
large GEO sats weigh about 3-4t on orbit. Not many reach orbit at over 4 tonnes.
With ViaSat-2, which used a hybrid of traditional chemical propulsion and newer-technology electric propulsion, that meant months in transfer orbit before it could reach its orbital slot and become operational. While chemical-fueled spacecraft could make the journey a lot faster, Viasat opted for the hybrid chemical/electric design, in part to save more mass for additional payload electronics to boost the satellite’s capacity.https://corpblog.viasat.com/launch-partners-all-in-place-for-three-viasat-3-satellites/
We will use fully electric propulsion for all of our ViaSat-3 satellites.
Completely in ADDIDION to this capacity, is if SX set up ground stations and sell connections in other parts of the world, like New Zeeland, Europe, South Africa etc. Therefore there is a lot more concurrent income potential. (Canada overlaps somewhat with US capacity) And as more satellites launch potential connections only increase. And we have been following licensing and ground stations in many countries, and there are likely others undetected by NSF sleuthing.Each v1.0 satellite is about 20Gbps, and for 1600 of them, that's about 32Tbps. That works out to about a max of 1.28 million subscribers in the US, or roughly 1 million subscribers to use round numbers before major throttling (or upgrading of the network) is needed.
SpaceX has launched about 1000 satellites in just over a year, so it seems likely they'll have more capacity already in place before reaching 1 million subscribers.
I like your calculations, but there is a small problem, the territory of the United States (9.6 million km2 with Alaska is approximately 3.5% of the Earth territory between 53 parallels - 300 million km2.) Therefore, out of 1600 launched, only 40-50 can be used in the USA.
He used 4% (1/25) in his calculations (and then rounded down 25%), so close enough. (coverage goes beyond land area).
Hughesnet charges like $140-150/month for their 50GB tier which is still just 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up.
Viasat and Hughesnet together have like 1.5 million subscribers in the US. Starlink is gonna steal a good half of those and force Viasat and Hughesnet to drop their prices dramatically. These companies might go bankrupt.
Already talked to a relative who lives in the rural Midwest and has signed up for the Starlink email. I think people are actually still underestimating Starlink’s pent-up demand.
Starlink is going to make SpaceX so much dang money. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if SpaceX is worth $400B 10 years from now (ie twice Comcast) due to their Starlink business.
Found this interesting discussion on stackexchange. (Didn't actually find it, it came to me via their newsletter)
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/46291/what-impact-will-the-de-orbiting-of-thousands-of-satellites-have-on-the-atmosphe?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_overflow_newsletterQuoteWhat impact will the de-orbiting of thousands of satellites have on the atmosphere?
A couple of comments:Quote"it's not that the pollution and impact is small, it's that it's insignificantly small; it's not that it's less than other things, but that it's multiple orders of magnitude less than other things"
...
"Averaging it over the total mass of the troposphere is not useful as this is not where satellites burn up. Secondly, trace gases can have a major impact (see CFCs) even when their concentration is in the parts per billion range, so you need to look at what materials end up in the upper atmosphere due to satellites burning, rather than total mass"
Has there been anything from Starlink about re-distributing service. Like a single user terminal servicing a bunch of apartments, neighbors casually sharing a connection, or businesses with free wifi? Or businesses in general? You can cover a pretty good area with a cheap 9db antenna on each end.
Small villages in really remote areas also come to mind. Something like the old wimax could serve an entire small town.
Has there been anything from Starlink about re-distributing service. Like a single user terminal servicing a bunch of apartments, neighbors casually sharing a connection, or businesses with free wifi? Or businesses in general? You can cover a pretty good area with a cheap 9db antenna on each end.
Small villages in really remote areas also come to mind. Something like the old wimax could serve an entire small town.
The only provisions of the EULA I heard about so far have to do with Mars sovereignty.
I'm guessing that they will probably want to build a separate pricing tier for community or commercial use. But the opportunities are huge for that, especially in remote communities that have a cluster of homes, villages in Africa or other developing countries where individual households might not easily afford $100 a month, but a group of them can easily split that, or create a business doing it.
No Resale:https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/f
You may not resell access to the Services to others as a stand-alone service, unless agreed to in a separate agreement with SpaceX.
It just occurred to me that looking at HughesNet and Viasat are great ways to roughly guesstimate the typical utilization factor of a typical satellite Internet user. We anecdotally have plenty of info on typical speeds for HughesNet users. We should know how many sats they've launched an the total bandwidth available on those sats. And we know their user size. It's a little difficult for me to figure out which birds are relevant.For HughesNet will be used 3 sats in Ka band SPACEWAY 3 (95° W), EchoStar 17 (107.1° W), EchoStar 19 (97.1° W)
It should get us pretty close to how much capacity Starlink really might have in the US as they expand.
Anyone familiar enough with which services go to which birds to have a good guess at this?
It just occurred to me that looking at HughesNet and Viasat are great ways to roughly guesstimate the typical utilization factor of a typical satellite Internet user. We anecdotally have plenty of info on typical speeds for HughesNet users. We should know how many sats they've launched an the total bandwidth available on those sats. And we know their user size. It's a little difficult for me to figure out which birds are relevant.For HughesNet will be used 3 sats in Ka band SPACEWAY 3 (95° W), EchoStar 17 (107.1° W), EchoStar 19 (97.1° W)
It should get us pretty close to how much capacity Starlink really might have in the US as they expand.
Anyone familiar enough with which services go to which birds to have a good guess at this?
for ViaSat - ViaSat 1 (140 Gbit) and ViaSat 2 (300 Gbit)
Separate topic, but since Starlink is likely to be the majority of SpaceX's revenue in a year or two, it probably makes sense to consolidate a couple of the SpaceX forum subsections and create a new Starlink subsection. The top 4 threads on this current subforum are Starlink-related.
Musk then said “we have good satellite coverage from ~57 degrees latitude to ~39 degrees. More gateways mean improved latency. Aiming to get it below 20ms over time.”
“As more satellites reach their target orbit, more planes come online. We should be at 36 planes with all faulty satellites replaced by spares by Jan. That will give us continuous coverage down to around 30 degrees. By the end of next year, we hope to have full global coverage, including the poles.”
An update of the Spaceq.ca article from another thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51012.msg2148793#msg2148793), with some quotes from Musk. Seems legit new information, such as they expect to launch at least one higher inclination plane next year. Perhaps from Vandenberg?QuoteMusk then said “we have good satellite coverage from ~57 degrees latitude to ~39 degrees. More gateways mean improved latency. Aiming to get it below 20ms over time.”Quote“As more satellites reach their target orbit, more planes come online. We should be at 36 planes with all faulty satellites replaced by spares by Jan. That will give us continuous coverage down to around 30 degrees. By the end of next year, we hope to have full global coverage, including the poles.”
https://spaceq.ca/initial-spacex-starlink-service-in-canada-will-be-limited/
An update of the Spaceq.ca article from another thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51012.msg2148793#msg2148793), with some quotes from Musk. Seems legit new information, such as they expect to launch at least one higher inclination plane next year. Perhaps from Vandenberg?QuoteMusk then said “we have good satellite coverage from ~57 degrees latitude to ~39 degrees. More gateways mean improved latency. Aiming to get it below 20ms over time.”Quote“As more satellites reach their target orbit, more planes come online. We should be at 36 planes with all faulty satellites replaced by spares by Jan. That will give us continuous coverage down to around 30 degrees. By the end of next year, we hope to have full global coverage, including the poles.”
https://spaceq.ca/initial-spacex-starlink-service-in-canada-will-be-limited/
Whoo boy I'm at ~33 degrees. I might have Starlink by Jan?
;D
I'm going to go ahead and set up a pole right now so to get a spot with better northern view more above the trees.
This is honestly exciting.
Coverage might no be that great for a while unless you have a completely clear view of the sky above minimum elevation. You might need two or three sats available to prevent dropouts if you don't have a perfect view.An update of the Spaceq.ca article from another thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51012.msg2148793#msg2148793), with some quotes from Musk. Seems legit new information, such as they expect to launch at least one higher inclination plane next year. Perhaps from Vandenberg?Whoo boy I'm at ~33 degrees. I might have Starlink by Jan?QuoteMusk then said “we have good satellite coverage from ~57 degrees latitude to ~39 degrees. More gateways mean improved latency. Aiming to get it below 20ms over time.”Quote“As more satellites reach their target orbit, more planes come online. We should be at 36 planes with all faulty satellites replaced by spares by Jan. That will give us continuous coverage down to around 30 degrees. By the end of next year, we hope to have full global coverage, including the poles.”https://spaceq.ca/initial-spacex-starlink-service-in-canada-will-be-limited/
;D
I'm going to go ahead and set up a pole right now so to get a spot with better northern view more above the trees.
This is honestly exciting.
Coverage might no be that great for a while unless you have a completely clear view of the sky above minimum elevation. You might need two or three sats available to prevent dropouts if you don't have a perfect view.An update of the Spaceq.ca article from another thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51012.msg2148793#msg2148793), with some quotes from Musk. Seems legit new information, such as they expect to launch at least one higher inclination plane next year. Perhaps from Vandenberg?Whoo boy I'm at ~33 degrees. I might have Starlink by Jan?QuoteMusk then said “we have good satellite coverage from ~57 degrees latitude to ~39 degrees. More gateways mean improved latency. Aiming to get it below 20ms over time.”Quote“As more satellites reach their target orbit, more planes come online. We should be at 36 planes with all faulty satellites replaced by spares by Jan. That will give us continuous coverage down to around 30 degrees. By the end of next year, we hope to have full global coverage, including the poles.”https://spaceq.ca/initial-spacex-starlink-service-in-canada-will-be-limited/
;D
I'm going to go ahead and set up a pole right now so to get a spot with better northern view more above the trees.
This is honestly exciting.
I'm still wondering if these user terminals will be smart enough to plot blockages so handoffs when the satellite is about to go behind a tree or Starship in the neighbors yard can be planned. Or, what the acquisition time of a new bird will be.
Has anybody seen user instructions regarding path clearance? Most providers want minimum 5 degrees from any blockage, but I'm not that familiar with scanned array specs.
Each v1.0 satellite is about 20Gbps, and for 1600 of them, that's about 32Tbps. That works out to about a max of 1.28 million subscribers in the US, or roughly 1 million subscribers to use round numbers before major throttling (or upgrading of the network) is needed.
SpaceX has launched about 1000 satellites in just over a year, so it seems likely they'll have more capacity already in place before reaching 1 million subscribers.
I like your calculations, but there is a small problem, the territory of the United States (9.6 million km2 with Alaska is approximately 3.5% of the Earth territory between 53 parallels - 300 million km2.) Therefore, out of 1600 launched, only 40-50 can be used in the USA.
All users who have ever used geo for phone service.My guess is Viasat/Hughesnet might have to 1) go bankrupt and then 2) cut their prices to like $20-40/month. The satellites are still gonna be up there. Some people would choose lower cost.Viasat and Hughesnet together have like 1.5 million subscribers in the US. Starlink is gonna steal a good half of those and force Viasat and Hughesnet to drop their prices dramatically. These companies might go bankrupt.Half?
For some uses, cost is not the only consideration, latency is important.
All users who have ever used geo for phone service.My guess is Viasat/Hughesnet might have to 1) go bankrupt and then 2) cut their prices to like $20-40/month. The satellites are still gonna be up there. Some people would choose lower cost.Viasat and Hughesnet together have like 1.5 million subscribers in the US. Starlink is gonna steal a good half of those and force Viasat and Hughesnet to drop their prices dramatically. These companies might go bankrupt.Half?
For some uses, cost is not the only consideration, latency is important.
I know they have picocells and femto cells for people who have good internet but lousy phone service now. I'm expecting Starlink to spawn a whole new level of that, so people can use existing cells phones in poor telco coverage areas. Depends on how difficult the telco and FCC makes it to relay service in larger than single building or homesite areas.
It could be anything from sticking an antenna pole up in the middle of a remote town to requiring engineering studies, local permitting and public comment periods so people can claim that radio waves cause Justin Bieber fan clusters.
Phased arrays can switch basically instantly, but there’s probably processing overhead for attempting to switch on a packet by packet basis like that.
I have a question, which results from a discussion I've been having over on the Starlink protocols thread. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51990.msg2150324#msg2150324) It's actually three related questions:
1) How does the downlink bandwidth of the satellite change with the size of the spot beam?
2) How quickly can you slew a spot beam from one geographic location to another? Is it reasonable to be doing beam-steering on a packet-by-packet basis?
I have a question, which results from a discussion I've been having over on the Starlink protocols thread. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51990.msg2150324#msg2150324) It's actually three related questions:
If a terminal can be located in a region that's 100-500km wide,
There are still rain and snow issues, and the population density issue is still a factor.Can people please stop making statements like this without evidence?
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/spacex-starlink-services-prove-strong-in-the-rain
And yes, Starlink at least competes with cable as it exists today. It beats my service which costs almost as much.(Also beats higher tiers of my service which would cost more) The only question about whether I would switch to Starlink is if the suburban area I am in is too close to a big city and they decide not to offer service for population density reasons. (And the detail of working with my HOA to mount it outside.)
<snip>General FYI for people in the USA with HOAs...
The only question about whether I would switch to Starlink is if the suburban area I am in is too close to a big city and they decide not to offer service for population density reasons. (And the detail of working with my HOA to mount it outside.)
What's wrong with his statement? You don't need "evidence" to know that you'll have to keep four inches of snow off the dish or that six million people on a handful of satellites could be a problem. That link you posted means exactly nothing. Starlink has an advantage of being able to connect to an alternate satellite if a thunderstorm blocks the one you're on, but it doesn't have some sort of magic to make ku band pass through stuff that blocks it in other systems. In fact, ku geo operators often bump up signal to users during rain fades from monitoring SNRs from the remote ends, but I haven't heard anything about Starlink being able to do that.There are still rain and snow issues, and the population density issue is still a factor.Can people please stop making statements like this without evidence?
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/spacex-starlink-services-prove-strong-in-the-rain
And yes, Starlink at least competes with cable as it exists today. It beats my service which costs almost as much.(Also beats higher tiers of my service which would cost more) The only question about whether I would switch to Starlink is if the suburban area I am in is too close to a big city and they decide not to offer service for population density reasons. (And the detail of working with my HOA to mount it outside.)
What's wrong with his statement? You don't need "evidence" to know that you'll have to keep four inches of snow off the dish or that six million people on a handful of satellites could be a problem. That link you posted means exactly nothing. Starlink has an advantage of being able to connect to an alternate satellite if a thunderstorm blocks the one you're on, but it doesn't have some sort of magic to make ku band pass through stuff that blocks it in other systems.There are still rain and snow issues, and the population density issue is still a factor.Can people please stop making statements like this without evidence?
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/spacex-starlink-services-prove-strong-in-the-rain
And yes, Starlink at least competes with cable as it exists today. It beats my service which costs almost as much.(Also beats higher tiers of my service which would cost more) The only question about whether I would switch to Starlink is if the suburban area I am in is too close to a big city and they decide not to offer service for population density reasons. (And the detail of working with my HOA to mount it outside.)
StarLink terminal has heater power is 180 W . it is enough for snow..What's wrong with his statement? You don't need "evidence" to know that you'll have to keep four inches of snow off the dish or that six million people on a handful of satellites could be a problem. That link you posted means exactly nothing. Starlink has an advantage of being able to connect to an alternate satellite if a thunderstorm blocks the one you're on, but it doesn't have some sort of magic to make ku band pass through stuff that blocks it in other systems.There are still rain and snow issues, and the population density issue is still a factor.Can people please stop making statements like this without evidence?
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/spacex-starlink-services-prove-strong-in-the-rain
And yes, Starlink at least competes with cable as it exists today. It beats my service which costs almost as much.(Also beats higher tiers of my service which would cost more) The only question about whether I would switch to Starlink is if the suburban area I am in is too close to a big city and they decide not to offer service for population density reasons. (And the detail of working with my HOA to mount it outside.)
Gee!
Hadn't thought about the snow problem. If I could ever get it in my 43deg north suburbia I was going to mount to the top of my house. But with snow a constant in the winter and dish being angled very flat that wouldn't work unless I want to walk on roof in the winter.
Hadn't thought about the snow problem. If I could ever get it in my 43deg north suburbia I was going to mount to the top of my house. But with snow a constant in the winter and dish being angled very flat that wouldn't work unless I want to walk on roof in the winter.VSAT dishes usually have an offset to keep them from filling up with snow, or water at lower latitudes. Black, vinyl covers helped with snow in places. Some classroom number cruncher will probably say that snow doesn't block that much signal, but in the real world, it hurts more because it fuzzes up the signal phase wise and weird refractions cause more garbage to sneak in, so signal strength might look good but snr is lousy.
StarLink terminal has heater power is 180 W . it is enough for snow..How are they doing that with a POE powered dish?
StarLink terminal has heater power is 180 W . it is enough for snow..How are they doing that with a POE powered dish?
StarLink terminal has heater power is 180 W . it is enough for snow..How are they doing that with a POE powered dish?
Here is what it says:
https://i.imgur.com/4uQoiTo.jpg
StarLink terminal has heater power is 180 W . it is enough for snow..How are they doing that with a POE powered dish?
Here is what it says:
https://i.imgur.com/4uQoiTo.jpg
Note that the "x2" seems to be the key point. So they're actually running two separate PoE lines?
StarLink terminal has heater power is 180 W . it is enough for snow..How are they doing that with a POE powered dish?
Here is what it says:
https://i.imgur.com/4uQoiTo.jpg
Note that the "x2" seems to be the key point. So they're actually running two separate PoE lines?
Agree - 95W per port unless completely non standard.StarLink terminal has heater power is 180 W . it is enough for snow..How are they doing that with a POE powered dish?
Here is what it says:
https://i.imgur.com/4uQoiTo.jpg
Note that the "x2" seems to be the key point. So they're actually running two separate PoE lines?
Something like that must be true unless it is POE in a non standard form (injector). I have some 802.3bt PoE++ switches at work and their max is 95 watts per port. I haven't seen anything bigger yet.
Agree - 95W per port unless completely non standard.
How much power do we expect the actual communications gear to use? Is 95W sufficient for running the phased array for moth receive and transmit?
StarLink terminal has heater power is 180 W . it is enough for snow..How are they doing that with a POE powered dish?
Here is what it says:
https://i.imgur.com/4uQoiTo.jpg
Note that the "x2" seems to be the key point. So they're actually running two separate PoE lines?
One of those is to the router.
I doubt they'll ever 'beat' rain fade at the chosen frequencies but with UT's not limited to one sat, only the terminals deep in the guts of the storm would get hosed.There are still rain and snow issues, and the population density issue is still a factor.Can people please stop making statements like this without evidence?
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/spacex-starlink-services-prove-strong-in-the-rain (https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/spacex-starlink-services-prove-strong-in-the-rain)
And yes, Starlink at least competes with cable as it exists today. It beats my service which costs almost as much.(Also beats higher tiers of my service which would cost more) The only question about whether I would switch to Starlink is if the suburban area I am in is too close to a big city and they decide not to offer service for population density reasons. (And the detail of working with my HOA to mount it outside.)
Believe me, I am *very* happy to stop making statements like that as we are getting evidence to the contrary. But I will argue that previous statements were indeed evidence based (frequencies used known to be affected by water, plus also my experience with standard satellite -- which I should point out that I've always mentioned works perfectly well in a regular rain, but heavy rains and thunderstorms are certainly detrimental to signal strength).
Your concern that you might not be offered Starlink due to population density is one of the reasons some doubt it is really competitive with cable. To be truly competitive, it needs to be able to work in suburbia, and that does not seem to be in the cards right now. Future, who knows?
But for right now it is the perfect choice for me, and if they have beaten the rain fade problem, that just makes it even better.
Yeah-can’t even blame autocorrect! :oAgree - 95W per port unless completely non standard.
How much power do we expect the actual communications gear to use? Is 95W sufficient for running the phased array for moth receive and transmit?
You have cracked my "top ten favorite typos of the year" here. Is your reference North Woods moths near a floodlight in May, or the more sedate Florida mosquito bites per minute? And is that in raw gain, or dB?
Well another example in the (relatively) developed world - Wales in the UK! Where poor to non-existent internet is blighting lives during lockdown!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54796290
I hope Elon reads this thread! However I doubt SL has any infrastructure in the UK so far. ... but ISTM only ONE ground station would be needed to cover all of England, wales, and Southern Scotland.... so come on SpaceX Wales needs you!
I'm starting to question the 180W heater. Where did that number come from?
Gee!
Hadn't thought about the snow problem. If I could ever get it in my 43deg north suburbia I was going to mount to the top of my house. But with snow a constant in the winter and dish being angled very flat that wouldn't work unless I want to walk on roof in the winter.
Heat can be a problem when it gets really cold. There are add on heaters for regular dishes, but they can melt snow on some spots only to have it refreeze in others and you can wind up with ice instead of snow. 22 degree offset dishes with taut covers help in some areas. Or, you can page the tech 300 miles away to drive into the middle of White Sands at night up a mountain in the snow in the two wheel drive van the cheapass company gave him to knock the snow off the dish.Hadn't thought about the snow problem. If I could ever get it in my 43deg north suburbia I was going to mount to the top of my house. But with snow a constant in the winter and dish being angled very flat that wouldn't work unless I want to walk on roof in the winter.So are the motors still on the starlink dishes that people have installed?
If so then one way to clear the snow would be to tip it to a large angle (75 deg?) and have a small amount of heat and the snow would slide off.
I don't know, but I doubt if more than 5 watts of rf are leaving the dish, so most of the power supplied to the radio would wind up as heat anyhow.
Agree - 95W per port unless completely non standard.
How much power do we expect the actual communications gear to use? Is 95W sufficient for running the phased array for moth receive and transmit?
SpaceX VP Jonathan Hofeller: We chose to go direct-to-consumer initially for Starlink because "we can get direct feedback, there's no filter so we can continuously improve our product." #WSBW
Hofeller: "By having that direct feedback ... as we grow the business, especially internationally, we're keeping an open mind about potential relationships with third parties."
SpaceX VP Jonathan Hofeller, on the Starlink partnership with Microsoft's Azure Space:
"We're always looking for partners that can amplify what we're trying to do ... but also want folks that can move at the speed that we're moving at, which is incredibly fast." #WSBW
Hofeller: "Microsoft has proven to be a good partner in that regard." $MSFT
SpaceX's Hofeller confirms the Starlink pricing ($99/month, $499 upfront hardware cost), adds that the company aims to lower the cost of the user terminal over time, "as the lower the cost to acquire a customer, the more customers that we can potentially serve."
#WSBW
Hofeller added that SpaceX will adjust Starlink's pricing "as necessary to individual markets."
There are still rain and snow issues, and the population density issue is still a factor.Can people please stop making statements like this without evidence?
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/spacex-starlink-services-prove-strong-in-the-rain
And yes, Starlink at least competes with cable as it exists today. It beats my service which costs almost as much.(Also beats higher tiers of my service which would cost more) The only question about whether I would switch to Starlink is if the suburban area I am in is too close to a big city and they decide not to offer service for population density reasons. (And the detail of working with my HOA to mount it outside.)
Believe me, I am *very* happy to stop making statements like that as we are getting evidence to the contrary. But I will argue that previous statements were indeed evidence based (frequencies used known to be affected by water, plus also my experience with standard satellite -- which I should point out that I've always mentioned works perfectly well in a regular rain, but heavy rains and thunderstorms are certainly detrimental to signal strength).
Your concern that you might not be offered Starlink due to population density is one of the reasons some doubt it is really competitive with cable. To be truly competitive, it needs to be able to work in suburbia, and that does not seem to be in the cards right now. Future, who knows?
But for right now it is the perfect choice for me, and if they have beaten the rain fade problem, that just makes it even better.
There is anecdotal evidence that either rain and snow has an effect on the connection with people switching back to their other internet connection after snowfall.That is not even close to a fair description of the actual evidence. Others have actually gathered a variety of links, rather than just saying "trust me." You can follow the link to the post below that has supporting evidence.
...
There is also some evidence that the connection will degrade when transmitting through liquid water but for brevity I am not going to post a bunch of links.
Public beta users starting to report experience in snow/ice weather, some experienced slower speed or service interruption and needed to reset, some didn't experience any slowdown:Considering that they are still in beta, occasionally having to do a manual reset is not a sign of a permanent or unfixable issue. I occasionally have to reset my cable equipment to restore service for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
Hello all,
Just watched the SL terminal beautifully working with almost 70mbps dl and 15 mbps ul. I am amazed of this tech!
I am wondering if it is possible to reduce the antenna size to have around 200 elements in phased array that can be powered by PC's usb. Is it possible to shrink the size of the antenna for a minimum connection speed of 1mpbs dl?
Thanks!
Hello all,
Just watched the SL terminal beautifully working with almost 70mbps dl and 15 mbps ul. I am amazed of this tech!
I am wondering if it is possible to reduce the antenna size to have around 200 elements in phased array that can be powered by PC's usb. Is it possible to shrink the size of the antenna for a minimum connection speed of 1mpbs dl?
Thanks!
I have to admit to not worrying about the snow problem (selfish I know, lots of other people will have issues). It snows to any quantity down here about once every four or five years, and when that happens I'll do what I do with the satellite dish right now -- go out with a broom and knock the snow off.Snow can be really hard to figure. All of these user tests don't really tell you much because the nature of snow seems to be all over the place as far as ku band degradation. Maybe the size of the flakes matters in addition to density and crystalline vs amorphous mush snow. It would be fun to do a test, but not in south Texas.
Why would it affect uptime?Hello all,
Just watched the SL terminal beautifully working with almost 70mbps dl and 15 mbps ul. I am amazed of this tech!
I am wondering if it is possible to reduce the antenna size to have around 200 elements in phased array that can be powered by PC's usb. Is it possible to shrink the size of the antenna for a minimum connection speed of 1mpbs dl?
Thanks!
Musk addressed this tangentially by saying that perhaps a Tesla car could be outfitted with Starlink by making a much smaller dish that could be integrated into the car.
But I don't think the connection speed would be impacted. Rather, the uptime and stability would be impacted. Once they have 12,000 satellites up, they could probably get away with smaller arrays, while having acceptable uptime and stability.
I have a question, which results from a discussion I've been having over on the Starlink protocols thread. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51990.msg2150324#msg2150324) It's actually three related questions:For transmitting, likely possible. For receiving, likely not.
2) How quickly can you slew a spot beam from one geographic location to another? Is it reasonable to be doing beam-steering on a packet-by-packet basis?
The dielectric constant of liquid water is at least an order of magnitude larger than for ice. That means that the signal is mostly affected by the liquid water content* - dry snow or solid ice would be much less of a problem than thin film of water with the worst case likely being slushy melting snow. Interesting problem when using heat to clear the antenna...I have to admit to not worrying about the snow problem (selfish I know, lots of other people will have issues). It snows to any quantity down here about once every four or five years, and when that happens I'll do what I do with the satellite dish right now -- go out with a broom and knock the snow off.Snow can be really hard to figure. All of these user tests don't really tell you much because the nature of snow seems to be all over the place as far as ku band degradation. Maybe the size of the flakes matters in addition to density and crystalline vs amorphous mush snow. It would be fun to do a test, but not in south Texas.
If you ever do decide to make some charts, just remember to use the effect on snr, in addition to signal strength. You can actually get better signal strength with a messed up dish covered in snow but it won't be a nice signal.
My expectation is that a user terminal will transmit/receive through one sat until it's near to passing out of range whereupon a handoff process would reassign it to a bird passing into range. There might be a short period where the UT splits its beam between the sats to pick up any orphaned packets. Shouldn't need to look at more than two sats at a time, and mostly only one.I have a question, which results from a discussion I've been having over on the Starlink protocols thread. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51990.msg2150324#msg2150324) It's actually three related questions:For transmitting, likely possible. For receiving, likely not.
2) How quickly can you slew a spot beam from one geographic location to another? Is it reasonable to be doing beam-steering on a packet-by-packet basis?
We know the array has about 1700 chips. To form a beam, each needs a specific phase shift, either for receiving or transmitting. If each internal packet contained a pointing vector (or an index into a table of pointings) then each chip could use that, plus its position in the array, to compute the needed phase shift. If done this way each packet could have its own outgoing pointing.
Receiving seems harder, since you don't know which packet will arrive from where, or at what time, and you can't keep them from coming in at the same time. So you pretty much need to stare at all beams all the time. You could imagine some arcane time slot scheme, where packets from a certain direction arrive only at certain times, allowing you to multiplex your gaze, but that would add overall delay and complexity.
Why would it affect uptime?Hello all,
Just watched the SL terminal beautifully working with almost 70mbps dl and 15 mbps ul. I am amazed of this tech!
I am wondering if it is possible to reduce the antenna size to have around 200 elements in phased array that can be powered by PC's usb. Is it possible to shrink the size of the antenna for a minimum connection speed of 1mpbs dl?
Thanks!
Musk addressed this tangentially by saying that perhaps a Tesla car could be outfitted with Starlink by making a much smaller dish that could be integrated into the car.
But I don't think the connection speed would be impacted. Rather, the uptime and stability would be impacted. Once they have 12,000 satellites up, they could probably get away with smaller arrays, while having acceptable uptime and stability.
The basic things a smaller array would do are lower gain, wider beamwidth, and probably smaller total transmit power.
The gain and power could possibly be dealt with. The wider beamwidth affects how close Starlinks can be together in the sky without interference. I'd have to check their current beamwidth, but by the time they have 12000 satellites it will probably be reasonably common for 2 satellites to appear close together from the ground. If the beamwidth is too wide, it would limit subscriber density by interference, and increasing that is the only reason to put that many satellites up to begin with, they will have very robust coverage long before then.
There are also just fundamental problems where you want a minimum size to get useful beam steering (beamwidth and gain drop as you steer off foresight) so I doubt it would be practical to reduce the antenna size. Maybe if they had V band only antennas for some users in the future, those would be smaller, but that would presumably use smaller elements with tighter spacing as well.
Thanks all, for welcoming and some useful clarifications.Maybe I wasn't clear enough, it is not upload or latency that would be affected, but the ability to communicate at all, as you need a sufficient size to output the correct power and perform beam steering. The inherently wider beam would cause interference problems as you could not point at just one satellite necessarily.
I am just working on an idea for a "freedom" project where a small Starlink antenna that is small enough to be easily concealed from the authority, but speedy enough to use emails, watch youtube in SD quality and download books/podcasts/videos/etc.
To sum up, more SL satellites could make a smaller antenna possible, and a smaller surface area of antenna with a reduced number of elements should not necessarily penalize the download quality except perhaps, the upload quality and latency?
Thanks.
Thanks all, for welcoming and some useful clarifications.Maybe I wasn't clear enough, it is not upload or latency that would be affected, but the ability to communicate at all, as you need a sufficient size to output the correct power and perform beam steering. The inherently wider beam would cause interference problems as you could not point at just one satellite necessarily.
I am just working on an idea for a "freedom" project where a small Starlink antenna that is small enough to be easily concealed from the authority, but speedy enough to use emails, watch youtube in SD quality and download books/podcasts/videos/etc.
To sum up, more SL satellites could make a smaller antenna possible, and a smaller surface area of antenna with a reduced number of elements should not necessarily penalize the download quality except perhaps, the upload quality and latency?
Thanks.
There are other problems with what you are discussing, because it is easy to track RF sources. There would be no hiding regardless of physical size (and smaller physical size would make it easier to track as the sidelines would be bigger.) SpaceX simply will not in general transmit into a country that does not give them permission to do so. There are international rules where landing rights are expected to be respected.
Thanks all, for welcoming and some useful clarifications.Maybe I wasn't clear enough, it is not upload or latency that would be affected, but the ability to communicate at all, as you need a sufficient size to output the correct power and perform beam steering. The inherently wider beam would cause interference problems as you could not point at just one satellite necessarily.
I am just working on an idea for a "freedom" project where a small Starlink antenna that is small enough to be easily concealed from the authority, but speedy enough to use emails, watch youtube in SD quality and download books/podcasts/videos/etc.
To sum up, more SL satellites could make a smaller antenna possible, and a smaller surface area of antenna with a reduced number of elements should not necessarily penalize the download quality except perhaps, the upload quality and latency?
Thanks.
There are other problems with what you are discussing, because it is easy to track RF sources. There would be no hiding regardless of physical size (and smaller physical size would make it easier to track as the sidelobes would be bigger.) SpaceX simply will not in general transmit into a country that does not give them permission to do so. There are international rules where landing rights are expected to be respected.
Edit: fix typo/autocorrect issue
Yes, there is always some power sent in all directions - the narrower beam just means that the ratio of the power in the beam to that to the sides is greater. Remember that the satellites are > 500 km away which means that the even if the leakage in a particular direction is 1/1,000,000th (-60dB) the signal at 500 m will be the same strength as what the satellite receives. A signal detector can be much more sensitive since it does not need sufficient SNR to decode the signal, only detect it.Thanks all, for welcoming and some useful clarifications.Maybe I wasn't clear enough, it is not upload or latency that would be affected, but the ability to communicate at all, as you need a sufficient size to output the correct power and perform beam steering. The inherently wider beam would cause interference problems as you could not point at just one satellite necessarily.
I am just working on an idea for a "freedom" project where a small Starlink antenna that is small enough to be easily concealed from the authority, but speedy enough to use emails, watch youtube in SD quality and download books/podcasts/videos/etc.
To sum up, more SL satellites could make a smaller antenna possible, and a smaller surface area of antenna with a reduced number of elements should not necessarily penalize the download quality except perhaps, the upload quality and latency?
Thanks.
There are other problems with what you are discussing, because it is easy to track RF sources. There would be no hiding regardless of physical size (and smaller physical size would make it easier to track as the sidelobes would be bigger.) SpaceX simply will not in general transmit into a country that does not give them permission to do so. There are international rules where landing rights are expected to be respected.
Edit: fix typo/autocorrect issue
One question: if the phased array transmits a sufficiently narrow beam toward the orbiting satellites, is it still trackable? My understanding is that RF is trackable when it is sent in all directions...
Yes, there is always some power sent in all directions - the narrower beam just means that the ratio of the power in the beam to that to the sides is greater. Remember that the satellites are > 500 km away which means that the even if the leakage in a particular direction is 1/1,000,000th (-60dB) the signal at 500 m will be the same strength as what the satellite receives. A signal detector can be much more sensitive since it does not need sufficient SNR to decode the signal, only detect it.It can be a complicated dance. You usually won't use the same receive ku frequencies at the same polarity with geo sats one degree apart because 1.2m ground dishes aren't that tight. Avoiding interference with thousands of leo sats all zipping around with millions of user terminals will be fun. User terminals will cease transmitting almost instantly if they lose lock, but I still think the control and routing will be way more challenging than building and launching these things.
I have to admit to not worrying about the snow problem (selfish I know, lots of other people will have issues). It snows to any quantity down here about once every four or five years, and when that happens I'll do what I do with the satellite dish right now -- go out with a broom and knock the snow off.Snow can be really hard to figure. All of these user tests don't really tell you much because the nature of snow seems to be all over the place as far as ku band degradation. Maybe the size of the flakes matters in addition to density and crystalline vs amorphous mush snow. It would be fun to do a test, but not in south Texas.
If you ever do decide to make some charts, just remember to use the effect on snr, in addition to signal strength. You can actually get better signal strength with a messed up dish covered in snow but it won't be a nice signal.
Interesting application. Be aware: a small antenna means a large spread out beam. Not to mention side lobes. Not a good thing if the signal is intended to be covert. Also be aware that the link from the sat is a relatively tight beam and by definition it spotlights the receiver. Again, not a good thing for staying covert.Why would it affect uptime?Hello all,
Just watched the SL terminal beautifully working with almost 70mbps dl and 15 mbps ul. I am amazed of this tech!
I am wondering if it is possible to reduce the antenna size to have around 200 elements in phased array that can be powered by PC's usb. Is it possible to shrink the size of the antenna for a minimum connection speed of 1mpbs dl?
Thanks!
Musk addressed this tangentially by saying that perhaps a Tesla car could be outfitted with Starlink by making a much smaller dish that could be integrated into the car.
But I don't think the connection speed would be impacted. Rather, the uptime and stability would be impacted. Once they have 12,000 satellites up, they could probably get away with smaller arrays, while having acceptable uptime and stability.
The basic things a smaller array would do are lower gain, wider beamwidth, and probably smaller total transmit power.
The gain and power could possibly be dealt with. The wider beamwidth affects how close Starlinks can be together in the sky without interference. I'd have to check their current beamwidth, but by the time they have 12000 satellites it will probably be reasonably common for 2 satellites to appear close together from the ground. If the beamwidth is too wide, it would limit subscriber density by interference, and increasing that is the only reason to put that many satellites up to begin with, they will have very robust coverage long before then.
There are also just fundamental problems where you want a minimum size to get useful beam steering (beamwidth and gain drop as you steer off foresight) so I doubt it would be practical to reduce the antenna size. Maybe if they had V band only antennas for some users in the future, those would be smaller, but that would presumably use smaller elements with tighter spacing as well.
Thanks all, for welcoming and some useful clarifications.
I am just working on an idea for a "freedom" project where a small Starlink antenna that is small enough to be easily concealed from the authority, but speedy enough to use emails, watch youtube in SD quality and download books/podcasts/videos/etc.
To sum up, more SL satellites could make a smaller antenna possible, and a smaller surface area of antenna with a reduced number of elements should not necessarily penalize the download quality except perhaps, the upload quality and latency?
Thanks.
There is anecdotal evidence that either rain and snow has an effect on the connection
Is it possible to shrink the size of the antenna for a minimum connection speed of 1mpbs dl?
Thanks!
Do we know how many different lobes (beams) the user terminals can receive simultaneously?
When a UT first fires up it needs to get the attention of a bird, any bird, to get mapped into the system. An onboard ephemeris that might be stale would tell it where it should find a bird but like ethernet, it's a probabilistic process. It might take a while. The birds would probably need to dedicate some precious receive resources to looking for new UT's. Once logged into the system it's existence/location would be propagated in some manner.
Do we know how many different lobes (beams) the user terminals can receive simultaneously?
One beam.
It`s frequency band is 240 MHz
I'm pretty sure that all channels have 50MHz bandwidth, so that doesn't make sense. I'm looking for a focused, modulated channel, not just the hunk of bandwidth allocated by the FCC for sat-to-terminal downlink.
Albert & our dish. We're @SpaceXStarlink beta testers, way happy with the internet speed and what it means for remote communities across the country, especially under COVID.
I'm pretty sure that all channels have 50MHz bandwidth, so that doesn't make sense. I'm looking for a focused, modulated channel, not just the hunk of bandwidth allocated by the FCC for sat-to-terminal downlink.
I have nothing against your confidence, it remains only to convince Space of this because it sends slightly different data to the FCC :-)
see Emission Designator (more about it https://fccid.io/Emissions-Designator/)
Receiving seems harder, since you don't know which packet will arrive from where, or at what time, and you can't keep them from coming in at the same time. So you pretty much need to stare at all beams all the time. You could imagine some arcane time slot scheme, where packets from a certain direction arrive only at certain times, allowing you to multiplex your gaze, but that would add overall delay and complexity.Contention detection protocols, such as Aloha, fail miserably in overload, don't make good use of capacity, suffer from quite a lot of jitter, and have a hard time with quality of service guarantees. So I think you need some arcane time slot scheme, at least for the bulk of the data. So you do know when packets will (or could) arrive.
Except for newly arrived user terminals the bird will know where it's targets are.AIUI you can't just plunk down a UT anywhere you want. You have to tell Starlink where you want to put it when you establish the business relationship. So there is at least the potential of the network knowing where new terminals are, and polling or listening to particular locations, rather than searching the entire Earth all the time.
So, what is the strategy for filling out planes when one or two satellites fail? In that case, there may be coverage gaps, which would be a bummer for users streaming movies.
Will SpaceX launch a full Falcon with 60 sats into a plane if only one or two sats are dead?
So, what is the strategy for filling out planes when one or two satellites fail? In that case, there may be coverage gaps, which would be a bummer for users streaming movies.
Will SpaceX launch a full Falcon with 60 sats into a plane if only one or two sats are dead?
The other half of the problem is the UT needs to know where the sat is. It will come with an ephemeris but that can go stale before it goes on line. It can spread its beam for better coverage at the cost of signal strength. The choreography has to be tight. Maybe there will be enough leakage from the sat beams that the UT can find one, any one, easy enough.Except for newly arrived user terminals the bird will know where it's targets are.AIUI you can't just plunk down a UT anywhere you want. You have to tell Starlink where you want to put it when you establish the business relationship. So there is at least the potential of the network knowing where new terminals are, and polling or listening to particular locations, rather than searching the entire Earth all the time.
So, what is the strategy for filling out planes when one or two satellites fail? In that case, there may be coverage gaps, which would be a bummer for users streaming movies.
Will SpaceX launch a full Falcon with 60 sats into a plane if only one or two sats are dead?
So, what is the strategy for filling out planes when one or two satellites fail? In that case, there may be coverage gaps, which would be a bummer for users streaming movies.
Will SpaceX launch a full Falcon with 60 sats into a plane if only one or two sats are dead?
So, what is the strategy for filling out planes when one or two satellites fail? In that case, there may be coverage gaps, which would be a bummer for users streaming movies.
Will SpaceX launch a full Falcon with 60 sats into a plane if only one or two sats are dead?
Also it's not the movie streaming that tends to suffer from shortish gaps -- everybody buffers minutes ahead. But gaming and video conferencing will definitely be strongly affected by gaps of even a few seconds.
I guess I could go over and browse Reddit for a while, but has anybody heard from gamers how the beta is going for them at this point? Smooth sailing or lots of disconnects?
So, what is the strategy for filling out planes when one or two satellites fail? In that case, there may be coverage gaps, which would be a bummer for users streaming movies.
Will SpaceX launch a full Falcon with 60 sats into a plane if only one or two sats are dead?
They've already filled a couple gaps by drifting satellites. You don't have to launch the satellites directly into their operational plane, it's just a heck of a lot faster than drifting them halfway around the orbital sphere.
SpaceX seeks FCC permission to test Starlink Internet on Gulfstream Jets
https://twitter.com/vincent13031925/status/1329220965520162816?s=20QuoteSpaceX seeks FCC permission to test Starlink Internet on Gulfstream Jets
This guy has some opinions on the matter...
Could just be installed non-optimally (he is using the ridgeline mount) but there are a few possible obstructions nearby judging by the video of his installation.
Here's the modification that's actually been approved (technical attachment to Schedule S (https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-MOD-20181108-00083/1569860.pdf)), and here's Schedule S itself (https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-MOD-20181108-00083/1569902.pdf). Look at the sections marked "receiving channels" and "transmitting channels" in Schedule S.I know this file (but not understand what is "Channel", what is 480MD7W - I know)
The other half of the problem is the UT needs to know where the sat is. It will come with an ephemeris but that can go stale before it goes on line. It can spread its beam for better coverage at the cost of signal strength. The choreography has to be tight. Maybe there will be enough leakage from the sat beams that the UT can find one, any one, easy enough.
First order of business is to announce the UT presence to the system. Second is to download a fresh ephemeris and hook up with the correct sat.
Doesn't seem like it would be hard to leave a few hot spare satellites in the plane drift altitudes spaced every few planes.So, what is the strategy for filling out planes when one or two satellites fail? In that case, there may be coverage gaps, which would be a bummer for users streaming movies.
Will SpaceX launch a full Falcon with 60 sats into a plane if only one or two sats are dead?
They've already filled a couple gaps by drifting satellites. You don't have to launch the satellites directly into their operational plane, it's just a heck of a lot faster than drifting them halfway around the orbital sphere.
Drifting over from adjacent plane is just kicking the can down the road, as in: how to replace the sats that drifted to the next plane as replacements.
So, what is the strategy for filling out planes when one or two satellites fail? In that case, there may be coverage gaps, which would be a bummer for users streaming movies.
Will SpaceX launch a full Falcon with 60 sats into a plane if only one or two sats are dead?
Also it's not the movie streaming that tends to suffer from shortish gaps -- everybody buffers minutes ahead. But gaming and video conferencing will definitely be strongly affected by gaps of even a few seconds.
I guess I could go over and browse Reddit for a while, but has anybody heard from gamers how the beta is going for them at this point? Smooth sailing or lots of disconnects?
This guy has some opinions on the matter...
Could just be installed non-optimally (he is using the ridgeline mount) but there are a few possible obstructions nearby judging by the video of his installation.
AIUI, they were, or were planning on stuffing a couple extras into each plane to act as spares. Worst case, drift the other sats throughout the plane to give even, but thinner coverage. High latitudes would not suffer, only the lower. As more planes come on line the southernmost latitude with continuous coverage will creep south. The key is keeping early mortality as low as possible.So, what is the strategy for filling out planes when one or two satellites fail? In that case, there may be coverage gaps, which would be a bummer for users streaming movies.
Will SpaceX launch a full Falcon with 60 sats into a plane if only one or two sats are dead?
They've already filled a couple gaps by drifting satellites. You don't have to launch the satellites directly into their operational plane, it's just a heck of a lot faster than drifting them halfway around the orbital sphere.
Drifting over from adjacent plane is just kicking the can down the road, as in: how to replace the sats that drifted to the next plane as replacements.
How would this work? Would the sat be semi-continuously sweeping a beam along its 'lane'? Maybe limit it to areas where the system knows a new UT will be coming on line some time in the near (5 days? 2months?) future?The other half of the problem is the UT needs to know where the sat is. It will come with an ephemeris but that can go stale before it goes on line. It can spread its beam for better coverage at the cost of signal strength. The choreography has to be tight. Maybe there will be enough leakage from the sat beams that the UT can find one, any one, easy enough.
First order of business is to announce the UT presence to the system. Second is to download a fresh ephemeris and hook up with the correct sat.
IMHO an unregistered UT should listen passively and wait for a satellite to poll. The poll would be a short message to the effect that the sat will be at position x,y,z at time t listening on frequency f, protocol P. There won't be too many subscribed but unregistered UTs at a time, so polling them all once a second or so won't be too bad.
There will be millions of consumer grade, consumer operated UTs. Some will fail in interesting ways. For example if the receiver fails the UT could continually broadcast, causing interference. The protocol should be designed to limit this. The simplest way is to have the UT not transmit until it gets permission from a satellite, permission could last from a few minutes to a few weeks before it has to be renewed.
Starlink engineers will answer questions about the service today
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jybmgn/we_are_the_starlink_team_ask_us_anything/
Honestly, I thought the user speeds at sometimes 200 Mbs+ were already rather excellent. So it's interesting that they think they can increase those further.
Honestly, I thought the user speeds at sometimes 200 Mbs+ were already rather excellent. So it's interesting that they think they can increase those further.
Increased bandwidth could be used to serve more customers in an area rather than just increasing max speeds to single users.
Honestly, I thought the user speeds at sometimes 200 Mbs+ were already rather excellent. So it's interesting that they think they can increase those further.
https://www.reddit.com/user/DishyMcFlatface/comments/?sort=new
https://www.reddit.com/user/DishyMcFlatface/comments/?sort=new
Doesn't seem like it would be hard to leave a few hot spare satellites in the plane drift altitudes spaced every few planes.So, what is the strategy for filling out planes when one or two satellites fail? In that case, there may be coverage gaps, which would be a bummer for users streaming movies.
Will SpaceX launch a full Falcon with 60 sats into a plane if only one or two sats are dead?
They've already filled a couple gaps by drifting satellites. You don't have to launch the satellites directly into their operational plane, it's just a heck of a lot faster than drifting them halfway around the orbital sphere.
Drifting over from adjacent plane is just kicking the can down the road, as in: how to replace the sats that drifted to the next plane as replacements.
That's still kicking the can down the road, in terms of how to inject just a few satellites into a plane.
Falcon flies 60+ sats at a time. AFAIK, sats from a single launch can only drift to adjacent planes (unless something has recently changed). That puts 20 sats in a plane. So, how does SpaceX replace one failed satellites without interruptions in service due to gaps in the plane?
That's still kicking the can down the road, in terms of how to inject just a few satellites into a plane.
Falcon flies 60+ sats at a time. AFAIK, sats from a single launch can only drift to adjacent planes (unless something has recently changed). That puts 20 sats in a plane. So, how does SpaceX replace one failed satellites without interruptions in service due to gaps in the plane?
At a guess: have enough satellites in each plane, and planes spaced close enough, that they don't need to replace single failed satellites. Each failed satellite would just create slightly lower capacity for the area it passes over, until they have had time to redistribute the satellites within the plane and/or neighbouring planes; it would not cause a service interruption. Replenishing will just wait until the entire plane is about to be decomissioned due to high age.
(This is assuming the failure rate stays within expected bounds, of course, and that they don't have the bad luck of having many neighbouring satellites fail.)
This is similar to how Google are said to not bother with replacing broken nodes in their computer clusters. They just have enough spare capacity, and broken nodes are left in the rack until the entire rack is decomissioned and replaced.
https://www.reddit.com/user/DishyMcFlatface/comments/?sort=newAlso it sounds like ISL is still work in progress, so may be a while before it's deployed.
This is similar to how Google are said to not bother with replacing broken nodes in their computer clusters. They just have enough spare capacity, and broken nodes are left in the rack until the entire rack is decomissioned and replaced.You can see instances of google datacenter machines being repaired here: https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/gallery/ (select individual pictures to see captions making this clear).
Falcon flies 60+ sats at a time. AFAIK, sats from a single launch can only drift to adjacent planes ...
https://www.reddit.com/user/DishyMcFlatface/comments/?sort=newAlso it sounds like ISL is still work in progress, so may be a while before it's deployed.
This is big deal, without inter-satellite links they can't serve truly remote customers like ocean-going ships, aircraft or military. They're apparently planning to launch polar satellites but why bother if you're going to have to replace them anyway? Most they can do is serve Alaska a few months earlier, it this really worth 6 launches?
Falcon flies 60+ sats at a time. AFAIK, sats from a single launch can only drift to adjacent planes ...
A sat can drift to any plane in the same shell, the distance just determines how long it will take. A launch of 60 Starlink sats could be used to fill a single hole in each of 60 planes if they really wanted to.
Receiving seems harder, since you don't know which packet will arrive from where, or at what time, and you can't keep them from coming in at the same time. So you pretty much need to stare at all beams all the time. You could imagine some arcane time slot scheme, where packets from a certain direction arrive only at certain times, allowing you to multiplex your gaze, but that would add overall delay and complexity.Contention detection protocols, such as Aloha, fail miserably in overload, don't make good use of capacity, suffer from quite a lot of jitter, and have a hard time with quality of service guarantees. So I think you need some arcane time slot scheme, at least for the bulk of the data. So you do know when packets will (or could) arrive.
Falcon flies 60+ sats at a time. AFAIK, sats from a single launch can only drift to adjacent planes ...
A sat can drift to any plane in the same shell, the distance just determines how long it will take. A launch of 60 Starlink sats could be used to fill a single hole in each of 60 planes if they really wanted to.
I don’t think that Starlink sats have enough prop to do that. To drift effectively, the perigee has to be low, and so a considerable amount of drag would be incurred. The sat would need to fire its engine repeatedly to overcome the drag, thus reducing satellite lifetime. The drift period might be many months, which likewise reduces satellite operational lifetime.
What is the greatest plane change a Starlink sat has made to date? The nominal plane change max was going to be about 10 - 15 degrees, if I remember correctly.
Falcon flies 60+ sats at a time. AFAIK, sats from a single launch can only drift to adjacent planes ...
A sat can drift to any plane in the same shell, the distance just determines how long it will take. A launch of 60 Starlink sats could be used to fill a single hole in each of 60 planes if they really wanted to.
I don’t think that Starlink sats have enough prop to do that. To drift effectively, the perigee has to be low, and so a considerable amount of drag would be incurred. The sat would need to fire its engine repeatedly to overcome the drag, thus reducing satellite lifetime. The drift period might be many months, which likewise reduces satellite operational lifetime.
What is the greatest plane change a Starlink sat has made to date? The nominal plane change max was going to be about 10 - 15 degrees, if I remember correctly.
They don't fly THAT low when drifting. Standard protocol has been to do the plane changes in a 380km parking orbit which is relatively stable. Heck, it's only 30km or so below the ISS. According to the image below the largest drift so far has been about 150 degrees by one of the launch 3 sats. The first plane of that launch ended up at 110 degrees and the lone sat is filling a blank spot at 320 degrees.
In scanning through the "official Starlink" replies I could find on today's Reddit session, the one answer that seemed to me most different from expectations of people posting here was the clear assertion that as shipped the user terminal does not know where to expect satellites to be. It just looks up, scans the sky, and within milliseconds acquires a first Starlink satellite, from which it downloads ephemeris and other data needed for future use.
$600 hardware - one off cost - assume no profit for simplicity)
No, that's a wild guess at the cost by a competitor who doesn't want to acknowledge his system is so far from being able to compete with Starlink in a year that if the two systems were planets, it would take light 36,000 years to travel from one to the other.
$600 hardware - one off cost - assume no profit for simplicity)
Cost for Starlink terminal ca. 1500...2000 USD see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50047.msg2156375#msg2156375
When is the last time you installed a VSAT dish on a ship? It hasn't worked like that since they added GPS to the dishes. A good controller will know almost exactly where to swing the dish to, the signal they use for peaking is probably weaker than the main data carriers. The main thing to sync is uphill data slots, which they figure from the GPS coordinates you send as soon as you lock on and start transmitting. (No military experience here, just commercial) It's not that much different than automatic dish type fixed VSAT. In the systems I worked on, the operator would trigger a new procedure when the vessel moves far enough to mess up the time slot. They might have more dynamic ways of handling that now. I'm at least eight years out of date.In scanning through the "official Starlink" replies I could find on today's Reddit session, the one answer that seemed to me most different from expectations of people posting here was the clear assertion that as shipped the user terminal does not know where to expect satellites to be. It just looks up, scans the sky, and within milliseconds acquires a first Starlink satellite, from which it downloads ephemeris and other data needed for future use.
but this is how all VSAT terminals on ships work - each satellite has a very strong beacon on a fixed and constant frequency. The terminal starts scanning the sky at the frequency of the beacon and, having received it, captures the satellite and tracking it. And at the frequency of the Beacon, a download file of 1 kilobyte can be transmitted, which is quite enough for synchronization with the gateway and the network control center
Nothing Earth-shattering in SpaceX's replies, but we do get a good sense of what they think they are capable of making better versus the earliest experiences by the beta users.I'm trying to figure out how this works. Tight beam gives good power or receive sensitivity but narrow coverage. Wide beam the opposite. When a new UT comes on line and starts searching there may not be a sat aiming anywhere near it. AIUI, side lobes are still there and can peak fairly high but become very narrow at high antenna gain.
*Bandwidth, latency, obstructions, general reliability
*Heating of the dish
*Implementation of IPv6, assigning an IPv4 address
*They don't want to implement data caps, but left open the possibility that would need to do so
*Mobility
*User terminal power consumption (standby mode, etc.)
*Optical satellite links for increased coverage
Honestly, I thought the user speeds at sometimes 200 Mbs+ were already rather excellent. So it's interesting that they think they can increase those further.
https://www.reddit.com/user/DishyMcFlatface/comments/?sort=new (https://www.reddit.com/user/DishyMcFlatface/comments/?sort=new)
Unless the dish has a dual GPS antenna heading sensor it wouldn't even have anything better than a magnetic compass for initial orientation. But once it acquires a link the first time, it will know exactly how it's set, so even if the tables aren't accurate enough for exact pointing, it should be able to scan a satellite track pretty quick. And once it's online, it will probably have extremely accurate tables for all birds. It will need those for fast switching.Nothing Earth-shattering in SpaceX's replies, but we do get a good sense of what they think they are capable of making better versus the earliest experiences by the beta users.I'm trying to figure out how this works. Tight beam gives good power or receive sensitivity but narrow coverage. Wide beam the opposite. When a new UT comes on line and starts searching there may not be a sat aiming anywhere near it. AIUI, side lobes are still there and can peak fairly high but become very narrow at high antenna gain.
*Bandwidth, latency, obstructions, general reliability
*Heating of the dish
*Implementation of IPv6, assigning an IPv4 address
*They don't want to implement data caps, but left open the possibility that would need to do so
*Mobility
*User terminal power consumption (standby mode, etc.)
*Optical satellite links for increased coverage
Honestly, I thought the user speeds at sometimes 200 Mbs+ were already rather excellent. So it's interesting that they think they can increase those further.
https://www.reddit.com/user/DishyMcFlatface/comments/?sort=new (https://www.reddit.com/user/DishyMcFlatface/comments/?sort=new)
So what happens? Just keep scanning until a signal brushes past? If there's enough signal strength for UT receive, I guess there's enough for sat receive. Probably be a special packet structure like the arcnet "I'm not the net" announcement. Might take awhile with a couple false starts.
Assume a failure rate of 10% over a five year lifetime, intentions of having 18 working sats in each plane and placement of 20. Drifting sats through the plane to keep even intervals can be done very fast with much less propellant expenditure than actively cranking into a new plane. Much less does not equal zero, but it's doable.This is similar to how Google are said to not bother with replacing broken nodes in their computer clusters. They just have enough spare capacity, and broken nodes are left in the rack until the entire rack is decomissioned and replaced.You can see instances of google datacenter machines being repaired here: https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/gallery/ (https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/gallery/) (select individual pictures to see captions making this clear).
Abandon-in-place is one of those ideas that pops up, repeatedly (I think I've heard it attributed to IBM and Microsoft as well). However, abandoning a failed node in place rather than swapping it out for a working one means you strand not just that node's capacity but also the network/power/cooling capacity that was dedicated to it. It's going to pay off to swap a $50 part in a $5000 server early in a server's life even if it costs you $500 to do it.
That said, Microsoft has experimented with an unattended underwater datacenter:
https://news.microsoft.com/innovation-stories/project-natick-underwater-datacenter/ (https://news.microsoft.com/innovation-stories/project-natick-underwater-datacenter/) ; they observed lower failure rates, possibly due to the use of a nitrogen atmosphere in the container.
Turning the focus back to Starlink: a failed starlink satellite strands an orbit slot and creates a load hotspot in the neighboring satellites. If they're going to be launching regularly I think it makes sense to fill holes..
In trying to understand the financial investment of getting Starlink online, I pulled out a napkin and started scribbling. I'm hoping that the following is within the ballpark
$250,000. per satellite @ 60 units per launch $225,000,000.
$35,000,000. per launch @ 15 launches per year $525,000,000.
$100,000,000. per year infrastructure, development, & operating costs
$300,000,000. years 2015-2018 (tin tin)
$200,000,000. year 2019 (2 launches)
$850,000,000. yearly expenditures year 2020 (and into the future)
$1,350,000,000. year-to-date
Future expenditures through to 2030
$1,350,000,000. (2015-2020)
$8,500,000,000. (2021-2030)
$9,850,000,000. Total expenditures
Revenue: ($600 hardware - one off cost - assume no profit for simplicity)
I feel it is safe to assume that full operation will not occur by the end of 2021. Even thought there is revenue being generated, it is currently negligible, and probably will be for many months. The following math is based strictly on direct customer subscription (no government subsidies).
Starlink monthly fee $99. But, some percentage of that are taxes and I'm not going to lie, I have no clue as to how to guesstimate, so I chose 19%, yielding an after tax income of $80.
To break even - $9,850,000,000./$80/8 years/12 months = 1,282,552 customers by 2022.
If Starlink can acquire: 2,000,000. customers = $688,750,080. profit income per year
3,000,000. customers = $1,648,750,080. profit income per year
this shows that every 1 million customers yields approx. $960 million. Also, I defined a "customer" as a single flat dish deployment.
If anyone has better (or even accurate) numbers, please, please add to/correct what I have done.
{I am not an accountant}
How long did that drift maneuver take?
I assume the green dot at 320 degrees represents a sat from the L3 launch. But, I can’t assume that the drift started immediately after launch, nor if the drift was all at 380 km altitude.
It also looks like the long drift was a one-off experiment. Any idea of the designation of the drifting sat?
BTW, orbital drag at 380 km is non-trivial.
This sounds like a very workable system in theory. In practice I wonder how much valuable spectrum this would eat up. I ask in total ignorance of the impact. Has there been anything in the FCC filings showing something like this? Gongora, that's your cue. :DIn scanning through the "official Starlink" replies I could find on today's Reddit session, the one answer that seemed to me most different from expectations of people posting here was the clear assertion that as shipped the user terminal does not know where to expect satellites to be. It just looks up, scans the sky, and within milliseconds acquires a first Starlink satellite, from which it downloads ephemeris and other data needed for future use.
but this is how all VSAT terminals on ships work - each satellite has a very strong beacon on a fixed and constant frequency. The terminal starts scanning the sky at the frequency of the beacon and, having received it, captures the satellite and tracking it. And at the frequency of the Beacon, a download file of 1 kilobyte can be transmitted, which is quite enough for synchronization with the gateway and the network control center
Tim Farrer is congenitally incapable of saying anything about anything connected with SpaceX that is not negative in the extreme. I admit that I'm in the opposite camp, but do not hold myself up as being anything but a amazing people. Nobody pays me or makes investments because of what I say.
$600 hardware - one off cost - assume no profit for simplicity)
Cost for Starlink terminal ca. 1500...2000 USD see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50047.msg2156375#msg2156375 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50047.msg2156375#msg2156375)
How long did that drift maneuver take?
I assume the green dot at 320 degrees represents a sat from the L3 launch. But, I can’t assume that the drift started immediately after launch, nor if the drift was all at 380 km altitude.
It also looks like the long drift was a one-off experiment. Any idea of the designation of the drifting sat?
BTW, orbital drag at 380 km is non-trivial.
The green dot is a sat at much lower altitude of around 300km and not part of that operational plane (it also means it drifts much faster). I originally posted (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.msg2157229#msg2157229) the graph that was highlighted above to do nothing more than point out holes in planes, otherwise I usually attach an animation showing anomaly over time, which shows when sats are at far lower altitudes than those in the operational plane. I've attached such.
Another possibility for the sats that have done long drifts (right now, just a single L1 sat) is that they were troubleshooting a sat in a lower orbit, eventually got it working, but by that point it had drifted a long way, and they didn't want to wait for it to make it back to its original plane. Yet another possibility is they picked a sat to run trials on, eventually having it rejoin the constellation once those were complete.
My eyeballed test for plane change speed at the current standard 380km drift orbit is 0.385 degrees per day, or 52/26/13 days per plane, depending on the phase of the constellation (we're currently on 26 days, about to switch to 13).
IF 0.385 degrees per day were the plane change amount, then for S-1029 to move 120 degrees would take a year. In reality, it took from January to September.
BTW, you can see the engine firings to compensate for drag at 380 kms. I don't know the magnitude of the corrections, though.
You can get a fair chunk of that back by configuring drifting satellite to reduce frontal area.
At 380km 9.685E-16 g/cm^3
At 540km 3.319E-17 g/cm^3
So in that example 29 times.
So spending 9 months at 380km would be the equivalent of 21 years at 540km!?
This is big deal, without inter-satellite links they can't serve truly remote customers like ocean-going ships, aircraft or military. They're apparently planning to launch polar satellites but why bother if you're going to have to replace them anyway? Most they can do is serve Alaska a few months earlier, it this really worth 6 launches?
hey are contractually bound to serve Alaska within a predefined period, it was a condition of their spectrum license from the FCC. If they don't expect to have ISLs before the deadline, have to launch the polar sats without, and might as well do it sooner rather than later. I don't remember the deadline, but if someone else does they could mention it.
Are they planning on higher inclination launches after the initial 1440 sat constellation?hey are contractually bound to serve Alaska within a predefined period, it was a condition of their spectrum license from the FCC. If they don't expect to have ISLs before the deadline, have to launch the polar sats without, and might as well do it sooner rather than later. I don't remember the deadline, but if someone else does they could mention it.
If I'm reading the authorization correctly, they don't actually have to serve all of Alaska until 2027.
Are they planning on higher inclination launches after the initial 1440 sat constellation?
And as long as I'm demanding information I'm too lazy to find myself, what size coverage circle do you get at 25 degree elevation?
IF 0.385 degrees per day were the plane change amount, then for S-1029 to move 120 degrees would take a year. In reality, it took from January to September.
I wonder if they'd consider a relay without a good internet connection in places like Dutch Harbor. Bouncing up and down wouldn't help latency, but it might be a way to expand service in places like the Aleutians until ISLs are sorted out. Pretty much the same as some people were postulating on ships. They could still have a low speed maintenance connection to the site via geo service in case the main link had trouble.
Will this guy be banned from ever owning a Starlink ground station?
...
When is the last time you installed a VSAT dish on a ship? It hasn't worked like that since they added GPS to the dishes. A good controller will know almost exactly where to swing the dish to, the signal they use for peaking is probably weaker than the main data carriers. The main thing to sync is uphill data slots, which they figure from the GPS coordinates you send as soon as you lock on and start transmitting. (No military experience here, just commercial) It's not that much different than automatic dish type fixed VSAT. In the systems I worked on, the operator would trigger a new procedure when the vessel moves far enough to mess up the time slot. They might have more dynamic ways of handling that now. I'm at least eight years out of date.
This sounds like a very workable system in theory. In practice I wonder how much valuable spectrum this would eat up. I ask in total ignorance of the impact. Has there been anything in the FCC filings showing something like this? Gongora, that's your cue. :DSorry, I am not Gongora, but I saw in the FCC file that user terminal can work with 15 MHz carrier..
This was in response to your:This sounds like a very workable system in theory. In practice I wonder how much valuable spectrum this would eat up. I ask in total ignorance of the impact. Has there been anything in the FCC filings showing something like this? Gongora, that's your cue. :DSorry, I am not Gongora, but I saw in the FCC file that user terminal can work with 15 MHz carrier..
but this is how all VSAT terminals on ships work - each satellite has a very strong beacon on a fixed and constant frequency. The terminal starts scanning the sky at the frequency of the beacon and, having received it, captures the satellite and tracking it.
Then the question becomes: what to do with the potential connection. If there's a time slice going on within the beam would a new entrant be able to get a word in to announce its presence? Could a narrow channel be kept unused except for initial hookups? I'm beyond my limits of competence at this point.
If two new registrations collide, they will timeout when they don't get a response from the bird, do a random exponential backoff, and try again until they succeed.Time to dust off the old 10Base-T books?
Some thinking out loud. If the 15mHz carrier is transmitted omni it would need quite a bit of power overall to insure a useable amount falls on a UT antenna. It could be narrowed down to only cover the usable ground track that it can service. This would drop requirements by ~83%. It might cut this in half by only broadcasting in its direction of travel, off to the sides and below. So roughly 1/12th of a sphere or roughly 8% of the power needed if transmitted omnidirectional
Getting that first lock is starting to look easier than I thought. If the UT only scans in the direction the sats are coming from and ignoring the ones that have already passed on, it has less sky to watch and can tighten up the antenna to catch a beacon if they do that, or a side lobe or main beam if not. Probably not a beacon.
Then the question becomes: what to do with the potential connection. If there's a time slice going on within the beam would a new entrant be able to get a word in to announce its presence? Could a narrow channel be kept unused except for initial hookups? I'm beyond my limits of competence at this point.
Sorry if this is all obvious to many. I can't really understand a system until I work through it myself. Or paint myself into a corner of ignorance and give up hope.
If two new registrations collide, they will timeout when they don't get a response from the bird, do a random exponential backoff, and try again until they succeed.Time to dust off the old 10Base-T books?
#SpaceX #Starlink animation inspired by #Pixar.
Thanks to @TJ_Cooney for the awesome idea!
It was fun to do some #character #animation again.
@SpaceX @elonmusk
Yup. If you could get rid of the users the system would run so much smoother. Oh wait, that would mean... Never mind 8)Then the question becomes: what to do with the potential connection. If there's a time slice going on within the beam would a new entrant be able to get a word in to announce its presence? Could a narrow channel be kept unused except for initial hookups? I'm beyond my limits of competence at this point.
I can think of a couple of ways to deal with this, but the easiest would be simply to have an edge on the downlink beacon and define that new registrations should occur at some some multiple of xx ms from that edge. If two new registrations collide, they will timeout when they don't get a response from the bird, do a random exponential backoff, and try again until they succeed.
Since this "scan, find any bird, and try to register" behavior really only happens at power-up (after which the bird will command the UT to hand itself off to a specific follow-on bird), the pathological case is power restorations after an area power failure, when everybody tries to register at the same time. I used to do stuff with VoIP phones, and this is easy to do so that it eventually works, but hard to do so that your customers aren't annoyed with you. IIRC, it was often convenient to pretend that power-up took longer than it actually did, so you could do more exponential backoff without the customer seeing a "registering with the switch..................." message. UI stuff--gotta love it (not).
Once the ISL links are up and running all management traffic, via RF uplink from the ground or generated within the constellation, may be passed along that way. AIUI FCC does not regulate bandwidth here, so that precious RF bandwidth can be saved for paying customers.Some thinking out loud. If the 15mHz carrier is transmitted omni it would need quite a bit of power overall to insure a useable amount falls on a UT antenna. It could be narrowed down to only cover the usable ground track that it can service. This would drop requirements by ~83%. It might cut this in half by only broadcasting in its direction of travel, off to the sides and below. So roughly 1/12th of a sphere or roughly 8% of the power needed if transmitted omnidirectional
Getting that first lock is starting to look easier than I thought. If the UT only scans in the direction the sats are coming from and ignoring the ones that have already passed on, it has less sky to watch and can tighten up the antenna to catch a beacon if they do that, or a side lobe or main beam if not. Probably not a beacon.
Then the question becomes: what to do with the potential connection. If there's a time slice going on within the beam would a new entrant be able to get a word in to announce its presence? Could a narrow channel be kept unused except for initial hookups? I'm beyond my limits of competence at this point.
Sorry if this is all obvious to many. I can't really understand a system until I work through it myself. Or paint myself into a corner of ignorance and give up hope.
1) I mean that 15 MHz carrier will be not trasmitted from omni antenna, but standart antenna as other service link . Omni antenna in Starlink will be used for telemetry/command link and Space X used own 5 m dish in Bruster teleport (WA) for receving telemetry and transmitting managing command on board (accordance FCC file from 2016) .
2) Of course I don`t know how work Starlink, but I know initialisation procedure for Hughes HX Network, NOC (Gateway ) transmits initial file, when this file received by user terminal, Terminal send answer via special inroute (with very low speed ) using ALOHA method
// the HX System bandwidth allocation scheme uses an Aloha channel for initial traffic requests, which means that remotes can be configured to de-allocate bandwidth based on inactivity. This frees up unused bandwidth and allows an operator to make more efficient use of space segment resources
(from https://sputnik-video.ru/images/opisanie_hughes_hx100_eng.pdf (https://sputnik-video.ru/images/opisanie_hughes_hx100_eng.pdf)
ALOHA Channel will be used ONLY for command exchange between terminal and NOC/GateWay (never for customer traffik) and has average utilisation only ca. 5-7%
Or, terminator cap? What's a terminator cap? I just thought it would make a cool ear ring.If two new registrations collide, they will timeout when they don't get a response from the bird, do a random exponential backoff, and try again until they succeed.Time to dust off the old 10Base-T books?
Somewhere along the way I lost my copy of the DEC-Intel-Xerox Blue Book. 10Base-T seems frightfully modern and cutting-edge. Ah, the good old days, when you had to do time-domain reflectometry to figure out who unplugged the RG-58 BNC connector from one side of their T-adapter, taking down the office's entire LAN.
I'm not sure it's wise to do a mix of time slice and collision. Has this ever been done?
Or are we stumbling over terminology? With a pre defined time slice dedicated to new entrants only an apocalyptic situation like you described would lead to a hookup failure. Well there's more but I'm trying to keep it simple. A UT finds a sat, plays nice and uses the proper slice to hook up and gets nada for its effort because everybody else on that beam is doing the same thing. The sat might be able to pick out one UT and respond or it might go 'deer in the headlights' and remain silent.
I think of this as a failure and think of a collision specifically as hearing garbage while your listening to your own transmission. But yes, whatever we call it, the UT rolls the dice and picks another 'gimme a hookup' slice further down the temporal road.
I love that Aloha name. It fits perfectly for initial hookup. Is it an acronym?
Or, terminator cap? What's a terminator cap? I just thought it would make a cool ear ring.
Well, I hear a bit different story on Starlink deployment -
saying they will need some pause in Starlink launches - soon after beta-testing starts.
The pause would be on months scale.
Although, I can't be sure it's an info from insider, it well can be just another speculation.
Anyway, here are the reasons for a pause -
* evaluation of satellites, user terminals & gateway performance,
* collecting feedback from beta,
* implementing possible upgrades to satellites/terminals.
So, if we put some trust in this source, then the number of Starlink launches in H1 2021 would be 3 to 4.
Well, I hear a bit different story on Starlink deployment -
saying they will need some pause in Starlink launches - soon after beta-testing starts.
The pause would be on months scale.
Although, I can't be sure it's an info from insider, it well can be just another speculation.
Anyway, here are the reasons for a pause -
* evaluation of satellites, user terminals & gateway performance,
* collecting feedback from beta,
* implementing possible upgrades to satellites/terminals.
So, if we put some trust in this source, then the number of Starlink launches in H1 2021 would be 3 to 4.
Well, I hear a bit different story on Starlink deployment -
saying they will need some pause in Starlink launches - soon after beta-testing starts.
The pause would be on months scale.
Although, I can't be sure it's an info from insider, it well can be just another speculation.
Anyway, here are the reasons for a pause -
* evaluation of satellites, user terminals & gateway performance,
* collecting feedback from beta,
* implementing possible upgrades to satellites/terminals.
So, if we put some trust in this source, then the number of Starlink launches in H1 2021 would be 3 to 4.
In the scenario, what would SpaceX do with its satellite manufacturing staff--lay them off, and hire new ones in a few months? Just have them sit on their hands?
They have working satellites going up at a good clip. They have a requirement to have large numbers launched soon. They have the pipeline for producing satellites running nicely. Shutting down the pipeline for a few months doesn't make sense.
A pause or gap might be to introduce a new version (laser inter links)
I don’t believe SpaceX would hold off on launches with such a huge backlog.- what do you mean by "backlog" - in this case?
Satellites sitting on the ground, waiting for a ride to orbit, presumably.I don’t believe SpaceX would hold off on launches with such a huge backlog.- what do you mean by "backlog" - in this case?
Which backlog? SpaceX is waiting for customers to have their satellites shipped and ready. They are using the gaps to fly additional Starlink missions while waiting. ;)I don’t believe SpaceX would hold off on launches with such a huge backlog.- what do you mean by "backlog" - in this case?
Which backlog? SpaceX is waiting for customers to have their satellites shipped and ready. They are using the gaps to fly additional Starlink missions while waiting. ;)I don’t believe SpaceX would hold off on launches with such a huge backlog.- what do you mean by "backlog" - in this case?
The SpaceX plan as of Jan 2020 was to launch 24 sets of 60 sats in 2020. So far they have only launched 14. The sat production rate was as of Jan 2020 of 120+ sats per month. So even with some stalls with implementing a few upgrades along the way (several of which occurred without seemingly even slowing down the production line) there is still a high likelihood that quite a few sets of sats sit in storage.
Also there are plans that recently showed up for as many as 3 polar (high inclinations) flights in H1 2021. Plus the other normal inclination flights. So I do not expect the launch rate to slow. They will continue to launch as fast as assets (pads, ASDS, boosters) allow plus favorable weather. This will be probably similar to 2020's 14 launches but may be further limited due to assets availability. But if they do from 3 to 6 launches out of VAFB then maybe not.
Plus SpaceX would rather start deploying ISL enabled sats sooner rather than later. With indications that such ISL upgrades were imminent in Sept 2020. There is the likelihood like in other upgrades of a few with the ISL being deployed with a soon after full set with the upgrade. Such upgrade changeovers while not slowing the production/launch has been typical of this year. ISL mostly impacts sat software. They are low power devices that are also light weight.
A suspicion is that the set for the proposed high inclination launch in Early 2021 (NET Jan) may be sats with ISL. Since the timing would be about right for the ISL tech that has been "rumored" to be near ready for use.
Don’t they have a third ASDS almost ready?The SpaceX plan as of Jan 2020 was to launch 24 sets of 60 sats in 2020. So far they have only launched 14. The sat production rate was as of Jan 2020 of 120+ sats per month. So even with some stalls with implementing a few upgrades along the way (several of which occurred without seemingly even slowing down the production line) there is still a high likelihood that quite a few sets of sats sit in storage.
Also there are plans that recently showed up for as many as 3 polar (high inclinations) flights in H1 2021. Plus the other normal inclination flights. So I do not expect the launch rate to slow. They will continue to launch as fast as assets (pads, ASDS, boosters) allow plus favorable weather. This will be probably similar to 2020's 14 launches but may be further limited due to assets availability. But if they do from 3 to 6 launches out of VAFB then maybe not.
Plus SpaceX would rather start deploying ISL enabled sats sooner rather than later. With indications that such ISL upgrades were imminent in Sept 2020. There is the likelihood like in other upgrades of a few with the ISL being deployed with a soon after full set with the upgrade. Such upgrade changeovers while not slowing the production/launch has been typical of this year. ISL mostly impacts sat software. They are low power devices that are also light weight.
A suspicion is that the set for the proposed high inclination launch in Early 2021 (NET Jan) may be sats with ISL. Since the timing would be about right for the ISL tech that has been "rumored" to be near ready for use.
Using the ISL in the highly inclined orbits would make a lot of sense for coverage with minimal ground stations.
Flights out of VAFB would be pretty cool. Need another ASDS, but that's just money.
Well, I hear a bit different story on Starlink deployment -What if the pause is for getting ready to launch them on Starship on early orbital flights...
saying they will need some pause in Starlink launches - soon after beta-testing starts.
The pause would be on months scale.
Although, I can't be sure it's an info from insider, it well can be just another speculation.
Anyway, here are the reasons for a pause -
* evaluation of satellites, user terminals & gateway performance,
* collecting feedback from beta,
* implementing possible upgrades to satellites/terminals.
So, if we put some trust in this source, then the number of Starlink launches in H1 2021 would be 3 to 4.
Well, I hear a bit different story on Starlink deployment -What if the pause is for getting ready to launch them on Starship on early orbital flights...
saying they will need some pause in Starlink launches - soon after beta-testing starts.
The pause would be on months scale.
Although, I can't be sure it's an info from insider, it well can be just another speculation.
Anyway, here are the reasons for a pause -
* evaluation of satellites, user terminals & gateway performance,
* collecting feedback from beta,
* implementing possible upgrades to satellites/terminals.
So, if we put some trust in this source, then the number of Starlink launches in H1 2021 would be 3 to 4.
I mean, probably not. They can't afford to wait on Starship to fill out the constellation if there are hold-ups in Super Heavy or whatever... But...
(I assign a 5% probability to this, optimistically.)
Flights out of VAFB would be pretty cool. Need another ASDS, but that's just money.
I lost track of whether they are at a point where FCC approval of pending filings is necessary at this time.
I lost track of whether they are at a point where FCC approval of pending filings is necessary at this time.
It's needed for anything past the first shell. They can do at least 9 more flights in the initial shell just to get to 20 sats per plane (not counting replacing dead sats, which would take another flight).
Which backlog? SpaceX is waiting for customers to have their satellites shipped and ready. They are using the gaps to fly additional Starlink missions while waiting. ;)Satellites sitting on the ground, waiting for a ride to orbit, presumably.I don’t believe SpaceX would hold off on launches with such a huge backlog.- what do you mean by "backlog" - in this case?
I’m predicting at least 10-15 Starlink launches in the first half of 2021.
The rationale for that is simple. SpaceX can easily launch 4 flights a month with its current rate of booster reprocessing. However, there are only 7-8 external launches booked for 1H 2021. Three Starlink launches a month would fill that gap.
There is a huge demand for Starlink, and they will need a lot of capacity to meet that demand, which is reflected in the chart below.
Currently, there is a backlog of at least 720 Starlink satellites waiting to be launched.
With at least 16 external launches in 2H 2021 planned, the time to launch is sooner rather than later.
Well, I hear a bit different story on Starlink deployment -
saying they will need some pause in Starlink launches - soon after beta-testing starts.
The pause would be on months scale.
Although, I can't be sure it's an info from insider, it well can be just another speculation.
Anyway, here are the reasons for a pause -
* evaluation of satellites, user terminals & gateway performance,
* collecting feedback from beta,
* implementing possible upgrades to satellites/terminals.
So, if we put some trust in this source, then the number of Starlink launches in H1 2021 would be 3 to 4.
That’s an interesting theory, but it doesn’t make sense to me.
SpaceX has been continuously gathering data on all of those aspects. They don’t need to pause launches in order to do that. In fact, I would say it goes against their style to stop a rollout just to get data. Pretty much like how Tesla throws cars out there, because they’ll just fix it later.
There are already two Starlink launches planned for January, so only having 3 or 4 launches in six months doesn’t seem logical.
Of course, we can assume that Space X simply prints dollars, but if this is not the case,
Elon Musk has a choice of stopping something from the list above (temporarily).
Stop the launch of satellites would be logical, because all terminals produced now can operate via already launched satellites, a third of which are only on the way to a operational orbit..
So far, every SpaceX investment round has been heavily oversubscribed, and this doesn't show any trends of stopping.ok, what I see in https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1181412/000118141220000003/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml
Starlink deployment spending totals for 2020:So far, every SpaceX investment round has been heavily oversubscribed, and this doesn't show any trends of stopping.ok, what I see in https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1181412/000118141220000003/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml
Last round August 2020:
13. Offering and Sales Amounts
Total Offering Amount $2,066,446,620 USD
Total Amount Sold $1,901,446,920 USD
Total Remaining to be Sold $164,999,700 USD
But I agree, that 1,9 billion + income from commercial launches in 2020 are enough for 9...12 Month for all projects.
PS Could be another ways for Space X to raise money without reporting to SEC??
But basicly this expenditures would leave ~$800M for other tasks. Plus the $10M of profit for the commercial/DOD/NASA launches (11) plus another $10M for each Dragon flight in 2020 (5) =$150M
So those other projects would have a total of at least $950M.
SpaceX has plenty of cash.
In order to increase the strength of my argument I was trying to be pessimistic as possible but still reasonable. This included the profit margins for F9 missions. With a per flight costs for F9 of around $23M and a nominal price to customers of $40 to $50M does have more profit margin than just $10M. As well as for Dragon flights now the margins are not so clear with so many new variables with use of used vehicles and capsules also included. So I just used a pessimistic nominal for SpaceX of it's original margin of $10M back before reuse and the price was $62m.But basicly this expenditures would leave ~$800M for other tasks. Plus the $10M of profit for the commercial/DOD/NASA launches (11) plus another $10M for each Dragon flight in 2020 (5) =$150M
So those other projects would have a total of at least $950M.
SpaceX has plenty of cash.
I think you're confusing cashflow with profit here - they might only make $10 million profit per launch because of all the amortized development and manufacturing cost but I would assume they have vastly more free cash flow since those costs have already been paid and they're rarely introducing new booster now. I could see as much as a 50% cash flow margin on their launches. Average prices for basic launches are still in the $60 million range and they've flown largely reused boosters, reused Dragons and some reused fairings this year. Actual cash outflow for a basic launch (not balance sheet cost!) may well be around $30 million. Same for Dragon which has finished development but gets a constant per-launch payment.
A pessimistic cost of Manufacture of GT's $1500 * 100,000 = $150M
2, 3, and 4 are dirt cheap if you promise to buy one million of them.
A pessimistic cost of Manufacture of GT's $1500 * 100,000 = $150M
All estimates except this one seem realistic to me.
But with this I strongly disagree. Terminal is 4 components + packaging
1) Antenna
2) Power supply (made in ??? outside USA???)
3) WiFi router from Taiwan (=additional logistic cost)
4) mount
There is information about a contract with STMicroelectronics for 2.4 billion for 1 million terminals
plus 3 more components and logistics&packing
For me 2600 USD for UT will great job from purchase department Starlink team...
Any speculation on what "Starlink RF" might stand for?Rideshare Flight?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52617.msg2170017;topicseen#new
Cross posting the English version.Most of Germany is >40 and less than 53 degrees latitude. So just need some Gateways and the sale of GT's will follow not long after (like not more than a month). With ~8 more launches SpaceX will reach the ~1400 full operations numbers and exit Beta. Also with a possible 3 polar launches in H1 2021. The north edge will be well above the northern reaches of Germany which extends only to ~55 degrees. That reaching of 1400 sats could be as soon as July 2021.
https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2020/20201218_Starlink.html?nn=265778
Starlink 🛰 Mission Patch — a first in reusability!
With 16 Starlink satellite launches so far, and hundreds more to come... flying the boosters over and over again... it seems appropriate to have an evergreen mission patch.
QuoteStarlink 🛰 Mission Patch — a first in reusability!
With 16 Starlink satellite launches so far, and hundreds more to come... flying the boosters over and over again... it seems appropriate to have an evergreen mission patch.
$7 billion to bolster broadband access to help Americans connect remotely during the pandemic
Starlink beta testers received an update email today, which says SpaceX is repositioning "more than 500 satellites in an effort to improve coverage and decrease outages."
The company also made upgrades to the service, including a "Snow Melt Mode" for the Starlink dishes.
...
Heating the antenna seems like that should be a default.
...
Might be worth manufacturing two different models of the dish. One for normal climates and one for extreme environments. Then the additional costs of the “heatable” dish need not apply to the cheaper regular model, which might be fine for most users.A few non-scientific comments:
Might be worth manufacturing two different models of the dish. One for normal climates and one for extreme environments. Then the additional costs of the “heatable” dish need not apply to the cheaper regular model, which might be fine for most users.A few non-scientific comments:
Clearly, 100W struggling to melt snow in -30C weather.... ending up causing ice build up as the melt freezes... will at times not work!
Maybe a curved cover, either spherical or conical... if such can be added without dampening the signal too much.
Also a compromise on attitude. Most SL discs on youtube show it settling near horizontal, but tipped over somewhat should still be able to access some sats, especially where there are more overhead. And if the gears and motor are up to it a "shake" motion!
Then there is the idea of a mechanical wiper!
I grew up in Saskatchewan Canada, I know -30 and -40C, 100 watts of heat on something the size of a Starlink antenna wouldn't barely melt a snow flake in the depths of winter.So my experience with snow is a bit further south in areas that bottom out at around -10 to -20C.
There are things that could be done, like the suggested tilting to the sun, then crank up the heat and let the snow and ice slide off. Even then at -30C that might not be enough.
I honestly think SpaceX or some third party is going to end up manufacturing some cone shaped cover that will fit over the dish, or maybe a dome would be best.
But something besides that flat surface that's just crying to collect snow and ice.
They can't change altitude or inclination. theinternetftw has noticed them starting to change the spacing within planes:Looking at the plots from @StarlinkUpdates when the satellites shift to the new spacing they also shift to a slightly lower orbit (from +-550 km to +-547 km). It will be interesting to see if this altitude and spacing are temporary or permanent.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.msg2165708#msg2165708
Down here around 39deg N, in the middle of the US it usually doesn't snow below about -7C. Usually a cold front comes in from the NW and as it hits warmer air, moist and curling up from Nomadd land, the snow starts. At this temp is should be possible to keep the snow off before it builds up.Might be worth manufacturing two different models of the dish. One for normal climates and one for extreme environments. Then the additional costs of the “heatable” dish need not apply to the cheaper regular model, which might be fine for most users.A few non-scientific comments:
Clearly, 100W struggling to melt snow in -30C weather.... ending up causing ice build up as the melt freezes... will at times not work!
Maybe a curved cover, either spherical or conical... if such can be added without dampening the signal too much.
Also a compromise on attitude. Most SL discs on youtube show it settling near horizontal, but tipped over somewhat should still be able to access some sats, especially where there are more overhead. And if the gears and motor are up to it a "shake" motion!
Then there is the idea of a mechanical wiper!
I grew up in Saskatchewan Canada, I know -30 and -40C, 100 watts of heat on something the size of a Starlink antenna wouldn't barely melt a snow flake in the depths of winter.
There are things that could be done, like the suggested tilting to the sun, then crank up the heat and let the snow and ice slide off. Even then at -30C that might not be enough.
When the FCC gives a permit for a specific altitude, what precision do they expect? +/- X km? +/- some percentage of assigned altitude?They can't change altitude or inclination. theinternetftw has noticed them starting to change the spacing within planes:Looking at the plots from @StarlinkUpdates when the satellites shift to the new spacing they also shift to a slightly lower orbit (from +-550 km to +-547 km). It will be interesting to see if this altitude and spacing are temporary or permanent.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.msg2165708#msg2165708 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.msg2165708#msg2165708)
I was at my sister's house in MT, and she just got her Starlink terminal. I did a speed test of her prior wireless and got 0.22 Mbps. I helped her set up the Starlink dish outside and 10 minutes later we had 135 Mbps. 600 times faster. What a game changer! #Starlink
They can't change altitude or inclination. theinternetftw has noticed them starting to change the spacing within planes:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.msg2165708#msg2165708
They can't change altitude or inclination. theinternetftw has noticed them starting to change the spacing within planes:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.msg2165708#msg2165708
Well, the current plane of 550x550x53ş has a modification request pending at the FCC to go to 540x540x53.2ş. Impulsively, that would be 30m/s of delta-v. Using SEP, it's more. 50m/s? 70?
They can't change altitude or inclination. theinternetftw has noticed them starting to change the spacing within planes:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.msg2165708#msg2165708
Well, the current plane of 550x550x53ş has a modification request pending at the FCC to go to 540x540x53.2ş. Impulsively, that would be 30m/s of delta-v. Using SEP, it's more. 50m/s? 70?
It appears that Viasat wants to poison the LEO megaconstellation well by asking for an environmental review under NEPA of SpaceX's 2020 modification request. If the FAA denies this request and approves the modification, will Viasat file suit? Would Amazon take SpaceX's side in this?
Viasat must be desperate. They are playing dirty pool.
Does anybody have a list of dead satellites in orbit? I know that Celestrak lists 6 currently in orbit as dead (3 of them from the May 2019 launch), but there isn't much of an explanation on how exhaustive or complete that list is or how they were identified(SpaceX, Air Force). For instance, NORAD ID 46678 is in a ~250 km orbit, was launched 2 months ago but is listed as active on Celestrak. But it appears to be dead as it it didn't really complete or make progress on orbit raising with its siblings (every other satellite from its launch is above ~380 km by now except for one other one that de-orbited).
Does anybody have a list of dead satellites in orbit? I know that Celestrak lists 6 currently in orbit as dead (3 of them from the May 2019 launch), but there isn't much of an explanation on how exhaustive or complete that list is or how they were identified(SpaceX, Air Force). For instance, NORAD ID 46678 is in a ~250 km orbit, was launched 2 months ago but is listed as active on Celestrak. But it appears to be dead as it it didn't really complete or make progress on orbit raising with its siblings (every other satellite from its launch is above ~380 km by now except for one other one that de-orbited).
IMO this is one of the better sources for this, includes data for each questionable sat and whether or not acknowledged indirectly through FCC filings (yet)
https://planet4589.org/space/stats/megacon/starbad.html
Does anybody have a list of dead satellites in orbit? I know that Celestrak lists 6 currently in orbit as dead (3 of them from the May 2019 launch), but there isn't much of an explanation on how exhaustive or complete that list is or how they were identified(SpaceX, Air Force). For instance, NORAD ID 46678 is in a ~250 km orbit, was launched 2 months ago but is listed as active on Celestrak. But it appears to be dead as it it didn't really complete or make progress on orbit raising with its siblings (every other satellite from its launch is above ~380 km by now except for one other one that de-orbited).
IMO this is one of the better sources for this, includes data for each questionable sat and whether or not acknowledged indirectly through FCC filings (yet)
https://planet4589.org/space/stats/megacon/starbad.html
They can't change altitude or inclination. theinternetftw has noticed them starting to change the spacing within planes:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.msg2165708#msg2165708
Well, the current plane of 550x550x53ş has a modification request pending at the FCC to go to 540x540x53.2ş. Impulsively, that would be 30m/s of delta-v. Using SEP, it's more. 50m/s? 70?
No, those are different shells
It appears that Viasat wants to poison the LEO megaconstellation well by asking for an environmental review under NEPA of SpaceX's 2020 modification request. If the FAA denies this request and approves the modification, will Viasat file suit? Would Amazon take SpaceX's side in this?Not clear why people are dismissing this, there's a potential here of bogging down Starlink in environmental reviews and the new administration coming in might be very willing to entertain it.
Not clear why people are dismissing this, there's a potential here of bogging down Starlink in environmental reviews and the new administration coming in might be very willing to entertain it.
Any guesses as to how long this could take or what remedies could be requested? SpaceX so far has approval for "only" 1440 satellites in 550 km orbits and this will be complete soon, H1 2021 based on previous launch rates. Future launches depend on this orbit modification.
It appears that Viasat wants to poison the LEO megaconstellation well by asking for an environmental review under NEPA of SpaceX's 2020 modification request. If the FAA denies this request and approves the modification, will Viasat file suit? Would Amazon take SpaceX's side in this?Not clear why people are dismissing this, there's a potential here of bogging down Starlink in environmental reviews and the new administration coming in might be very willing to entertain it.
Any guesses as to how long this could take or what remedies could be requested? SpaceX so far has approval for "only" 1440 satellites in 550 km orbits and this will be complete soon, H1 2021 based on previous launch rates. Future launches depend on this orbit modification.
I think everyone is in wait and see mode, since FCC decision making process is rather opaque, [...]
I think everyone is in wait and see mode, since FCC decision making process is rather opaque, [...]
Not sure whether you are confusing FAA with FCC or I am.
AFAIK, FCC solely deals with frequency allocation, everything else to do with space activity is FAA.
Starlink “poses a hazard” to Viasat’s profits, more like it. Stop the sneaky moves, Charlie Ergen!
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1343880709157474304QuoteStarlink “poses a hazard” to Viasat’s profits, more like it. Stop the sneaky moves, Charlie Ergen!
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1343880709157474304QuoteStarlink “poses a hazard” to Viasat’s profits, more like it. Stop the sneaky moves, Charlie Ergen!
Charlie Ergen isn't at Viasat. He runs a competitor of Viasat.
3) Since the 5-person FCC is currently 3-2 Republican-Democrat, and Ajit Pai will resign at the end of Trump's term, any partisan-tinged rulemaking (and anything with the word "environment" in it is partisan pretty much by definition) will be impossible until Biden can appoint a new FCC chairman. If the Republicans hold the Senate, they have no intention of confirming an FCC chairman, since that would open up the whole net neutrality thing yet again. On the other hand, if the Democrats win the two senate seats in Georgia, things could get interesting.
About the Viasat NEPA argument.Yeah, the waiver is full of crap. Does Viasat really care about the environment when they launch on expendable rockets which trash the ocean and cause orbital debris? They're playing dirty pool.
The real sticking point in this is that if it goes to the Supreme Court the position would be: the waiver to the NEPA law either applies equally across the board for all sats and LVs or it does not apply to any. The Supreme Court has already made similar rulings against "arbitrary" application. If Viasat's opinion is that the waiver does not apply to large LEO constellations when the waiver had no such language in its formulation. This interpretation is entirely arbitrary from the standpoint of the court. So the FCC statement is backed by law precedent that the SpaceX constellation and mega constellations in general is covered by the waiver.
Since this a modification request shouldn't all objections be focused on the modification itself? Most of the points made in that document are generic objections to satellite launch as a whole and it seems to me they should be thrown out as irrelevant to the modification.Yup. Lower orbits are FAR better from orbital debris. It's almost the only safe option! Anything much higher than 1000km basically will still be up there 100 years from now, including GSO. So if a collision happens, you're just stuck with much of that debris for a very long time (no matter your marketing about "safety," failures still can happen so you need to mitigate the effects of that failure, and the only way to do that is lower your orbit so debris can deorbit in a reasonable timeframe). And spacex has been massively responsive to addressing light pollution concerns, including developing completely novel (well, that we can tell from declassified material) mitigations making them fully invisible to the naked eye once deployed. No one has done anything close.
One point that remains is the objection that this would lead to an increase in debris risk but this seems to be outright false: satellites in ~550km orbits are less dangerous than those in 1100km orbits. Junk in lower orbits will deorbit by itself much faster and higher orbits already contain more pieces of debris despite fewer launches.
It seems wrong to calculate risk based on the number of active satellites, the number of drifting objects seems much more important. As a long-term solution to orbital debris it should be possible to implement an automatic system of avoiding debris which would reduce the risk posed by an active satellite to near zero.
The other point is light pollution but this is mixed: satellites in higher orbits are dimmer but they reflect sunlight over the horizon for a longer period. The impact of satellites being visible deeper into the night could be *worse* than it currently is.
QuoteStarlink “poses a hazard” to Viasat’s profits, more like it. Stop the sneaky moves, Charlie Ergen!
Charlie Ergen isn't at Viasat. He runs a competitor of Viasat.
About the Viasat NEPA argument.
The real sticking point in this is that if it goes to the Supreme Court the position would be: the waiver to the NEPA law either applies equally across the board for all sats and LVs or it does not apply to any. The Supreme Court has already made similar rulings against "arbitrary" application. If Viasat's opinion is that the waiver does not apply to large LEO constellations when the waiver had no such language in its formulation. This interpretation is entirely arbitrary from the standpoint of the court. So the FCC statement is backed by law precedent that the SpaceX constellation and mega constellations in general is covered by the waiver.
envy pointed out on another forum that SpaceX has partial authority to start launching the VLEO constellation if they got bogged down waiting for the high LEO shells in the first license to be lowered to 530-570km, but those are V-band birds instead of Ka/Ku-band, and I suspect that they're physically different from the current ones. So, while that might keep them launching if things got dicey, it would leave them with a large inventory of un-launchable Ka/Ku's while also forcing production of the V-band birds, which likely aren't quite ready for prime time.
However it would make sense to deploy lower altitude birds eventually, regardless of frequency.envy pointed out on another forum that SpaceX has partial authority to start launching the VLEO constellation if they got bogged down waiting for the high LEO shells in the first license to be lowered to 530-570km, but those are V-band birds instead of Ka/Ku-band, and I suspect that they're physically different from the current ones. So, while that might keep them launching if things got dicey, it would leave them with a large inventory of un-launchable Ka/Ku's while also forcing production of the V-band birds, which likely aren't quite ready for prime time.
I would be a bit surprised if the V-band shells ever get deployed. Maybe add V-band gateway antennas to the Ku/Ka birds (which is already approved). The second generation constellation they applied for is Ku/Ka. It might be easier to just go optical instead of V-band.
Is this, or something like it, what Net Neutrality is all about? I've never paid any attention to it because it seemed so partisan an issue I've never expected either party to do more than blow smoke with unidentifiable bits of truth embedded.
Is there anything inherently unworkable in this division of labor? Would it improve internet (and other distributed) services? Would it cost the end user less or more?
And will Elon stay strictly a bit provider.
Is this, or something like it, what Net Neutrality is all about? I've never paid any attention to it because it seemed so partisan an issue I've never expected either party to do more than blow smoke with unidentifiable bits of truth embedded.
Is this, or something like it, what Net Neutrality is all about? I've never paid any attention to it because it seemed so partisan an issue I've never expected either party to do more than blow smoke with unidentifiable bits of truth embedded.
First, just in terms of the actual regulatory landscape...
With just a few weeks left in his tenure at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Chairman Ajit Pai circulated to his colleagues a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that, if adopted, would seek comment on whether to allow mobiles services in the 12 GHz band.
Opponents of the NPRM include SpaceX, which is using the 12 GHz band for its Starlink broadband satellite service, while proponents include Dish Network, the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) and Public Knowledge.
I happened to be going through Montana and I stopped by the Starlink ground station near Conrad MT to take some pictures. It sits in the middle of a field a few miles out of a very small town. I thought maybe a fiber line ran nearby or something but as far as I can tell the only reason picked it was because of the lat/lon. And maybe a good view of the horizons.
Google maps location
https://goo.gl/maps/YkRVsRsnWUt71iwQA
I happened to be going through Montana and I stopped by the Starlink ground station near Conrad MT to take some pictures. It sits in the middle of a field a few miles out of a very small town. I thought maybe a fiber line ran nearby or something but as far as I can tell the only reason picked it was because of the lat/lon. And maybe a good view of the horizons.
Google maps location
https://goo.gl/maps/YkRVsRsnWUt71iwQA
There is a train track nearby. It could get fiber from there.
Is this, or something like it, what Net Neutrality is all about? I've never paid any attention to it because it seemed so partisan an issue I've never expected either party to do more than blow smoke with unidentifiable bits of truth embedded.
First, just in terms of the actual regulatory landscape, at the core of the fight is a pretty simple dispute: whether ISPs are "information services" or "telecommunications common carriers". ...
The mean of 430 visual magnitudes of VisorSats adjusted to a distance of 550-km (the operational altitude) is 5.92 +/-0.04. This is the characteristic brightness of these satellites when observed at zenith. VisorSats average 1.29 magnitudes fainter than the original-design Starlink satellites and, thus, they are 31% as bright.
The Brightness of VisorSat-Design Starlink Satellites (https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00374)Interesting. I wonder if they'll keep tweaking this? They're *just* at the limit of human eyesight, especially when compounded by the fact that it's relatively near twilight. A bit more work would put them beyond 6, and maybe even 7.QuoteThe mean of 430 visual magnitudes of VisorSats adjusted to a distance of 550-km (the operational altitude) is 5.92 +/-0.04. This is the characteristic brightness of these satellites when observed at zenith. VisorSats average 1.29 magnitudes fainter than the original-design Starlink satellites and, thus, they are 31% as bright.
SpaceX has filed a response to Viasat's petition to perform an environmental review of SpaceX license modification. (https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=3380734)
The Brightness of VisorSat-Design Starlink Satellites (https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00374)Interesting. I wonder if they'll keep tweaking this? They're *just* at the limit of human eyesight, especially when compounded by the fact that it's relatively near twilight. A bit more work would put them beyond 6, and maybe even 7.QuoteThe mean of 430 visual magnitudes of VisorSats adjusted to a distance of 550-km (the operational altitude) is 5.92 +/-0.04. This is the characteristic brightness of these satellites when observed at zenith. VisorSats average 1.29 magnitudes fainter than the original-design Starlink satellites and, thus, they are 31% as bright.
Or would allow them to launch larger, more capable satellites (say, more optimized for Starship) without being brighter than they are now.
I think they're still working on it, need to hit 7 at least to satisfy the astronomers.
Big expansion of beta program in 6 to 8 weeks!
As to the expansion of Beta. That has already happened with Beta recently started (December) in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Germany ...
An item of importance is that the FCC licences for the 10 SSO sats has been approved and they will launch highly likely on Transporter-1 in the very near future (about a week from now).
This licence is for normal operations for these 10 for the complete life of these 10 sats. But the License is only a partial and does not licence any other sats for the 560km orbital altitude. For that full license instead of just this partial we will have to wait. The gist from the licence is that the public good due to the operation of these 10 outweighed heavily any current expressed concerns. But that does not mean that the full requested modification will get approved either.
The next item of speculation and interest to know is that will these 10 have prototype ISL onboard. They are all in the same orbit in a single string. A excellent testbed for a ISL prototype. Just need 2 ISL devices: one forward and one aft (in relation to the orbit of travel). Which could give a possible communication (except the fact that need more orbital planes to make it continuous) anywhere in the world with just a handful of Gateway stations. This includes North and South polar operations as well as mid ocean operations that would have been out of range. But until the full Licence from the FCC the remaining polar orbit sats are grounded.
As to the expansion of Beta. That has already happened with Beta recently started (December) in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Germany ...
NOTE: If that is not a big expansion then I do not know what that means. Plus once these 10 polar sats go into operation communication capability available twice a day for an hour or more each time becomes possible in latitudes from 53 degrees to the pole. At 100Mbps you can quickly download several shows/movies ~12 hours worth of 1080p video twice each day. Such that you could sit and binge out on video 24 hours a day for as many days as you can stand it. Netflix on some shows/movies allows some to be downloaded to be able to watch offline. So content is easily available. Just needs the sufficient bandwidth to make it possible.
I think I may have jumped the gun of a few countries in my list. Approvals for a Gateway do not = approvals for UT's. So will need to wait some for the approvals to grind through the RED TAPE in the respective countries that have started with a gateway installation approval. But the Gateway has to be installed and UT's then have to be approved which is a much harder task than a "industrial" Gateway installation approval which is a per installation licence vs a blanket licence for the whole country when referring to UT's.An item of importance is that the FCC licences for the 10 SSO sats has been approved and they will launch highly likely on Transporter-1 in the very near future (about a week from now).
This licence is for normal operations for these 10 for the complete life of these 10 sats. But the License is only a partial and does not licence any other sats for the 560km orbital altitude. For that full license instead of just this partial we will have to wait. The gist from the licence is that the public good due to the operation of these 10 outweighed heavily any current expressed concerns. But that does not mean that the full requested modification will get approved either.
The next item of speculation and interest to know is that will these 10 have prototype ISL onboard. They are all in the same orbit in a single string. A excellent testbed for a ISL prototype. Just need 2 ISL devices: one forward and one aft (in relation to the orbit of travel). Which could give a possible communication (except the fact that need more orbital planes to make it continuous) anywhere in the world with just a handful of Gateway stations. This includes North and South polar operations as well as mid ocean operations that would have been out of range. But until the full Licence from the FCC the remaining polar orbit sats are grounded.
As to the expansion of Beta. That has already happened with Beta recently started (December) in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Germany ...
NOTE: If that is not a big expansion then I do not know what that means. Plus once these 10 polar sats go into operation communication capability available twice a day for an hour or more each time becomes possible in latitudes from 53 degrees to the pole. At 100Mbps you can quickly download several shows/movies ~12 hours worth of 1080p video twice each day. Such that you could sit and binge out on video 24 hours a day for as many days as you can stand it. Netflix on some shows/movies allows some to be downloaded to be able to watch offline. So content is easily available. Just needs the sufficient bandwidth to make it possible.
I think Starlink going international is so much bigger than many think. The pace of the ramp is so much bigger when you add more of the globe. They really need to start getting more birds up there.
As for the 10 polar satellites, thanks for the math. That sounds like a very worth while beta for anyone that is living in isolated areas without high bandwidth. It may only be an hour a day twice a day for each user but those satellites could be providing service to 53 degrees north (and south) much of the day. Will we see launches out of VAFB?
I’d bet we see ISL on those 10.
The astronomers only care about brightness as seen through the telescope, which is virtually always going to be quite a bit dimmer than the 5.9 at zenith.I think they're still working on it, need to hit 7 at least to satisfy the astronomers.
I'd guess that the astronomers are happy when a Starlink can run through the image and not saturate the CCD pixels of anything important. As long as that doesn't happen, you can subtract out the trail without losing any signal from the things you're interested in.
I found a reference (https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/05/aa37958-20/aa37958-20.html) that says that Vera Rubin needs >= magnitude 8, so SpaceX isn't quite there yet.
I still think the ultimate answer to this problem is to build a detector that can stop collecting light when the bird's about impinge on a specific pixel. This is a hard problem if you're using CCDs, but it seems like something that some bright semiconductor engineer will figure out pretty soon.
snip....Ah no! the polar sats circle almost pole-to-pole (just 3 degrees off) ... is it normally 20 sats in one orbit? So assuming the 10 are spaced as they would be in a completed orbit, at least half of the orbit will be empty.... so wherever you are, even near the poles you will have 1/2 the time with no connection! And away from the poles that string will give you connection for at a guess 40 mins .....twice a day! - the sort of coverage in N Canada, and Alaska!
I think I may have jumped the gun of a few countries in my list. Approvals for a Gateway do not = approvals for UT's. So will need to wait some for the approvals to grind through the RED TAPE in the respective countries that have started with a gateway installation approval. But the Gateway has to be installed and UT's then have to be approved which is a much harder task than a "industrial" Gateway installation approval which is a per installation licence vs a blanket licence for the whole country when referring to UT's.
As mentioned don't get to much down into the wool. Because following various countries licencing of the Gateways and UT's is a lot of data which is mostly hidden until publicly announced usually with the advent of "UT kits" being shipped.
Also just a small note and that is as you move higher in latitude the duration of time the sat is in range even with just one orbit plane increases until at some point closer to the poles the ability to keep connected with a sat goes to 24 hour continuous. But also the assumption is that these 10 have ISL. If not then latitude max is a function of what latitude the highest gateways are at.
The astronomers only care about brightness as seen through the telescope, which is virtually always going to be quite a bit dimmer than the 5.9 at zenith.
The astronomers only care about brightness as seen through the telescope, which is virtually always going to be quite a bit dimmer than the 5.9 at zenith.
The Vera Rubin folks want mag 8 whole sky, because the observing program runs the whole sky every couple of days.
I'm not clear on how serious the satellite brightness problem is for earth-crossing asteroids. They require lots of observations at low horizon angles, and in twilight (not sure if they need civil or nautical, but they definitely less than astronomical). One problem I can see: at high brightness, the bird will create not just a streak but a smear: First, the motion of the bird across the field of view, which can cause saturation of the pixels under the motion. Then, when the CCD is shifted out for readout, each saturated pixel can leave a trail during the shift operation. That may be sufficiently destructive of the data that you could miss an asteroid.
Not sure this has been posted before, but why would Starlink need 5g spectrum allocation?They use some of the same frequencies.
https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/spacex-starlink-picks-up-australian-5g-mmwave-spectrum/ (https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/spacex-starlink-picks-up-australian-5g-mmwave-spectrum/)
Not sure this has been posted before, but why would Starlink need 5g spectrum allocation?They use some of the same frequencies.
https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/spacex-starlink-picks-up-australian-5g-mmwave-spectrum/ (https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/spacex-starlink-picks-up-australian-5g-mmwave-spectrum/)
Not sure this has been posted before, but why would Starlink need 5g spectrum allocation?They use some of the same frequencies.
https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/spacex-starlink-picks-up-australian-5g-mmwave-spectrum/ (https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/spacex-starlink-picks-up-australian-5g-mmwave-spectrum/)
Specifically, Starlink uses some of these frequencies for gateway uplink (from ground stations to satellites).
The goal of the VisorSats is to reduce the brightness of the Starlink satellites to magnitude 7 or fainter. Observations of those satellites that have reached their final orbit, though, indicate they have an average magnitude of 6.5, said Pat Seitzer of the University of Michigan during the conference session.
Cooper said SpaceX is committed to continue to work with astronomers to mitigate the effect of Starlink, but also emphasized the benefits of the system. “It’s important to keep the purpose of this disruption to astronomy, from your perspective, in context of the goal of the constellation we’re deploying, which is broadband connectivity,” she said.
“This collaboration needs to continue,” she added, because those discussions are “what’s getting us to a much better, more successful way of coexisting.”
It is entirely possible that by the end of April that SpaceX will have 1,505 working sats in orbit. But it will take some 30 to 60 days later for 1,500 fully operational sats in their proper positions to make the constellation meet the initial operations level goal. Or sometime in June. Some of the consideration for not launching more in Feb, March and April is booster availability. With 5 boosters and average cycle of 40 days it is easy to support 3 launches a month at least through April. After which 2 booster will have reached their 10 flight numbers. But also it is possible that after the Crew-2 launch sometime in April that 1061 would be placed into the que keeping the number of booster available at 4. At least for a while.Excellent analysis. Had no idea they were that lean on boosters. Is there a stated intent to retire the boosters at 10 flights? I know that's a reuse goal and just assumed the first one reaching that number would face detailed dissection and maybe a depo level referb procedure workup for the others if it looks good.
Also after April there are likely to be more other than Starlink launches to support in a month. Meaning launches of Starlinks in May and June may be sparse. Counted in 1 or 2 at most in a month. In July with GPSIII-5 launching (hopefully) another booster may be put in the que 1062 bringing the booster count back to 5. But that may be brief as one then another also reach their 10 flight numbers. But July, August and September a notoriously bad weather months. So during those months there is a big ? on just how many may get launched of anything let alone any Starlink sats.
But the basic key is Starlink should into it's operational mode by H2 2021.
* 100 Mbps (current) to 10 Gbps (future) downlink to user
* Architect orbit raising trajectories that avoid ISS and thoroughly coordinate launches in orbits near ISS and that could conjoin with ISS visiting vehicles
* Working closely with:
- NASA: Space Act Agreement to formalize and document close coordination ensuring safe operations near NASA satellites, ISS and visiting vehicles
- 18 SPCS: Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to improve coordination and synergy
- European Space Agency
If I'm not mistaken (I know ... that's a big "if"), the goal was 10 flights between overhauls, with a service life of the air frame (?? ... what do you call the structure of an orbital rocket, anyway?) of at least 100 flights. That was the Elon Aspiration anyway. At the very least I think it's safe to say there's no intention of automatic retirement after ten flights.It is entirely possible that by the end of April that SpaceX will have 1,505 working sats in orbit. But it will take some 30 to 60 days later for 1,500 fully operational sats in their proper positions to make the constellation meet the initial operations level goal. Or sometime in June. Some of the consideration for not launching more in Feb, March and April is booster availability. With 5 boosters and average cycle of 40 days it is easy to support 3 launches a month at least through April. After which 2 booster will have reached their 10 flight numbers. But also it is possible that after the Crew-2 launch sometime in April that 1061 would be placed into the que keeping the number of booster available at 4. At least for a while.Excellent analysis. Had no idea they were that lean on boosters. Is there a stated intent to retire the boosters at 10 flights? I know that's a reuse goal and just assumed the first one reaching that number would face detailed dissection and maybe a depo level referb procedure workup for the others if it looks good.
Also after April there are likely to be more other than Starlink launches to support in a month. Meaning launches of Starlinks in May and June may be sparse. Counted in 1 or 2 at most in a month. In July with GPSIII-5 launching (hopefully) another booster may be put in the que 1062 bringing the booster count back to 5. But that may be brief as one then another also reach their 10 flight numbers. But July, August and September a notoriously bad weather months. So during those months there is a big ? on just how many may get launched of anything let alone any Starlink sats.
But the basic key is Starlink should into it's operational mode by H2 2021.
I can guarantee you that in fifteen years, we'll hate Starlink just as much as we hate Comcast. It's just the nature of the beast. Starlink will get spun off, they'll put bean-counters in charge, and the grumbling will begin.I basically agree, but: Starlink may also pick up resentment from the other part of the Net Neutrality debate: the argument that NN's absence will hinder innovation by making it harder for small "technology" (i.e. strongly IT-based) companies to get going by creating a cost barrier to new market entrants to reach their customers at a competitive service level. How much that happens presumably depends on how much that's true (not going to try and start a debate on that here!) and on Starlink pricing policy.
A space frame? That one might already be taken. A vacuum frame? That's weird.If I'm not mistaken (I know ... that's a big "if"), the goal was 10 flights between overhauls, with a service life of the air frame (?? ... what do you call the structure of an orbital rocket, anyway?) of at least 100 flights. That was the Elon Aspiration anyway. At the very least I think it's safe to say there's no intention of automatic retirement after ten flights.It is entirely possible that by the end of April that SpaceX will have 1,505 working sats in orbit. But it will take some 30 to 60 days later for 1,500 fully operational sats in their proper positions to make the constellation meet the initial operations level goal. Or sometime in June. Some of the consideration for not launching more in Feb, March and April is booster availability. With 5 boosters and average cycle of 40 days it is easy to support 3 launches a month at least through April. After which 2 booster will have reached their 10 flight numbers. But also it is possible that after the Crew-2 launch sometime in April that 1061 would be placed into the que keeping the number of booster available at 4. At least for a while.Excellent analysis. Had no idea they were that lean on boosters. Is there a stated intent to retire the boosters at 10 flights? I know that's a reuse goal and just assumed the first one reaching that number would face detailed dissection and maybe a depo level referb procedure workup for the others if it looks good.
Also after April there are likely to be more other than Starlink launches to support in a month. Meaning launches of Starlinks in May and June may be sparse. Counted in 1 or 2 at most in a month. In July with GPSIII-5 launching (hopefully) another booster may be put in the que 1062 bringing the booster count back to 5. But that may be brief as one then another also reach their 10 flight numbers. But July, August and September a notoriously bad weather months. So during those months there is a big ? on just how many may get launched of anything let alone any Starlink sats.
But the basic key is Starlink should into it's operational mode by H2 2021.
Taking off my amazing people hat, no other sat ISP has their own launch capability. Seems like SX did an unfair end run around one of the entrant barriers.I can guarantee you that in fifteen years, we'll hate Starlink just as much as we hate Comcast. It's just the nature of the beast. Starlink will get spun off, they'll put bean-counters in charge, and the grumbling will begin.I basically agree, but: Starlink may also pick up resentment from the other part of the Net Neutrality debate: the argument that NN's absence will hinder innovation by making it harder for small "technology" (i.e. strongly IT-based) companies to get going by creating a cost barrier to new market entrants to reach their customers at a competitive service level. How much that happens presumably depends on how much that's true (not going to try and start a debate on that here!) and on Starlink pricing policy.
A possibility for the booster 10 flight refurbishment if the frame and other hardware is determined to be good to go for another 10 flights is to replace all 9 M1D's with new one's. The 10 flight limit is mainly that of the M1D's and it's number of full duration burn limits. Then do a "green Run" burn or a shortened burn that shows all is good. Then place booster back into rotation for another 10 flights. Some of the refurbishment may be swap out of some other hardware for newer versions to eliminate having to support much older versions in the normal launch process flow.A space frame? That one might already be taken. A vacuum frame? That's weird.If I'm not mistaken (I know ... that's a big "if"), the goal was 10 flights between overhauls, with a service life of the air frame (?? ... what do you call the structure of an orbital rocket, anyway?) of at least 100 flights. That was the Elon Aspiration anyway. At the very least I think it's safe to say there's no intention of automatic retirement after ten flights.It is entirely possible that by the end of April that SpaceX will have 1,505 working sats in orbit. But it will take some 30 to 60 days later for 1,500 fully operational sats in their proper positions to make the constellation meet the initial operations level goal. Or sometime in June. Some of the consideration for not launching more in Feb, March and April is booster availability. With 5 boosters and average cycle of 40 days it is easy to support 3 launches a month at least through April. After which 2 booster will have reached their 10 flight numbers. But also it is possible that after the Crew-2 launch sometime in April that 1061 would be placed into the que keeping the number of booster available at 4. At least for a while.Excellent analysis. Had no idea they were that lean on boosters. Is there a stated intent to retire the boosters at 10 flights? I know that's a reuse goal and just assumed the first one reaching that number would face detailed dissection and maybe a depo level referb procedure workup for the others if it looks good.
Also after April there are likely to be more other than Starlink launches to support in a month. Meaning launches of Starlinks in May and June may be sparse. Counted in 1 or 2 at most in a month. In July with GPSIII-5 launching (hopefully) another booster may be put in the que 1062 bringing the booster count back to 5. But that may be brief as one then another also reach their 10 flight numbers. But July, August and September a notoriously bad weather months. So during those months there is a big ? on just how many may get launched of anything let alone any Starlink sats.
But the basic key is Starlink should into it's operational mode by H2 2021.
Seems like SX did an unfair end run around one of the entrant barriers.I don't think it is unfair, just taking advantage of their position. What prevented other rocket companies from reducing costs by any measures including re-flying boosters? If say Arian Space produced a rocket with same operational cost as SpaceX and a satellite company built compact satellites so they could launch 60 at a time, would it not be competitive?
...The 10 flight limit is mainly that of the M1D's and it's number of full duration burn limits...Hmm. Where'd you get that from?
It's not without precedence. Orbital (then O/ATK now northrup grumman) actually did it with Orbcomm/Pegasus. But that venture went bankrupt and was spun off.Taking off my amazing people hat, no other sat ISP has their own launch capability. Seems like SX did an unfair end run around one of the entrant barriers.I can guarantee you that in fifteen years, we'll hate Starlink just as much as we hate Comcast. It's just the nature of the beast. Starlink will get spun off, they'll put bean-counters in charge, and the grumbling will begin.I basically agree, but: Starlink may also pick up resentment from the other part of the Net Neutrality debate: the argument that NN's absence will hinder innovation by making it harder for small "technology" (i.e. strongly IT-based) companies to get going by creating a cost barrier to new market entrants to reach their customers at a competitive service level. How much that happens presumably depends on how much that's true (not going to try and start a debate on that here!) and on Starlink pricing policy.
amazing people hat back on: You go for it Elon!
On Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/l3d38m/starlink_v2_possibly_with_laser_links/), some are surmising from the dispenser pictures that the 10 Starlink birds on Transporter-1 are carrying optical links. See the second picture in Ben Cooper's tweet -- for example, the five black cans pointed directly at the camera.
Would make sense.
It is entirely possible that by the end of April that SpaceX will have 1,505 working sats in orbit. But it will take some 30 to 60 days later for 1,500 fully operational sats in their proper positions to make the constellation meet the initial operations level goal. Or sometime in June. Some of the consideration for not launching more in Feb, March and April is booster availability. With 5 boosters and average cycle of 40 days it is easy to support 3 launches a month at least through April. After which 2 booster will have reached their 10 flight numbers. But also it is possible that after the Crew-2 launch sometime in April that 1061 would be placed into the que keeping the number of booster available at 4. At least for a while.Excellent analysis. Had no idea they were that lean on boosters. Is there a stated intent to retire the boosters at 10 flights? I know that's a reuse goal and just assumed the first one reaching that number would face detailed dissection and maybe a depo level referb procedure workup for the others if it looks good.
Also after April there are likely to be more other than Starlink launches to support in a month. Meaning launches of Starlinks in May and June may be sparse. Counted in 1 or 2 at most in a month. In July with GPSIII-5 launching (hopefully) another booster may be put in the que 1062 bringing the booster count back to 5. But that may be brief as one then another also reach their 10 flight numbers. But July, August and September a notoriously bad weather months. So during those months there is a big ? on just how many may get launched of anything let alone any Starlink sats.
But the basic key is Starlink should into it's operational mode by H2 2021.
Confirmed by Elon that they are laser links.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353408098342326276
TF and other Starlink permaskeptics:"...but they'll never make laser links cheap enough!!!"
SpaceX: *Makes laser links cheap enough*
Ha ha hee hee ho hah! When pig fly.Seems like SX did an unfair end run around one of the entrant barriers.I don't think it is unfair, just taking advantage of their position. What prevented other rocket companies from reducing costs by any measures including re-flying boosters? If say Arian Space produced a rocket with same operational cost as SpaceX and a satellite company built compact satellites so they could launch 60 at a time, would it not be competitive?
I can guarantee you that in fifteen years, we'll hate Starlink just as much as we hate Comcast. It's just the nature of the beast. Starlink will get spun off, they'll put bean-counters in charge, and the grumbling will begin.I basically agree, but: Starlink may also pick up resentment from the other part of the Net Neutrality debate: the argument that NN's absence will hinder innovation by making it harder for small "technology" (i.e. strongly IT-based) companies to get going by creating a cost barrier to new market entrants to reach their customers at a competitive service level. How much that happens presumably depends on how much that's true (not going to try and start a debate on that here!) and on Starlink pricing policy.
AIUI (my knowledge comes from "Space Merchants") a cartel is a vertically integrated business. Picture a GM car that can only fuel up at a GM gas station and be repaired by GM mechanics using GM parts. GM owning its own glass factories, steel mills, iron mines and chemical plants. The idea is to trap the consumer into an 'ecosystem' from which there is no easy escape. Depending on how laws are interpreted, it could be considered anti competitive. I don't like it.It's not without precedence. Orbital (then O/ATK now northrup grumman) actually did it with Orbcomm/Pegasus. But that venture went bankrupt and was spun off.Taking off my amazing people hat, no other sat ISP has their own launch capability. Seems like SX did an unfair end run around one of the entrant barriers.I can guarantee you that in fifteen years, we'll hate Starlink just as much as we hate Comcast. It's just the nature of the beast. Starlink will get spun off, they'll put bean-counters in charge, and the grumbling will begin.I basically agree, but: Starlink may also pick up resentment from the other part of the Net Neutrality debate: the argument that NN's absence will hinder innovation by making it harder for small "technology" (i.e. strongly IT-based) companies to get going by creating a cost barrier to new market entrants to reach their customers at a competitive service level. How much that happens presumably depends on how much that's true (not going to try and start a debate on that here!) and on Starlink pricing policy.
amazing people hat back on: You go for it Elon!
Also, Boeing could get in the game if they wanted. They make satellites and rockets (sort of).
The moral of the story is what SpaceX did is not unfair, and others have attempted it in the past. SpaceX is just wildly succeeding at it.
A question on this: That PAF on top of the Starlinks is new, isn't it? I wonder if that's only to secure the cylinder mount, or whether it'll show up in the next version of the Rideshare User's Guide as a supported attachment option. Thirty Starlinks and a semi-heavy 3rd-party bird seems like something that somebody should be interested in...
Definitely answers my speculation that these sats and this orbit would be a good opportunity to test laser links. From looking at the devices shown. Is it possible that there are 3 ISL's at 120 degree angles giving 360 degree 2D coverage? Such would allow 2 devices to connect fore and aft in the orbit plane even if one fails. Just rotate the sat 60 degrees.Confirmed by Elon that they are laser links.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353408098342326276
TF and other Starlink permaskeptics:"...but they'll never make laser links cheap enough!!!"
SpaceX: *Makes laser links cheap enough*
TF and other Starlink permaskeptics:"...but they'll never make laser links cheap enough!!!"
SpaceX: *Makes laser links cheap enough*
This brings to mind the raging discussion and debate just over 2 years ago about how much it would cost per sat to launch and manufacture them. Most of which was about how many at a time could be launched. The numbers went from only 18 to as many 30. All based on available volume and the volume taken up by the deployment structures.TF and other Starlink permaskeptics:"...but they'll never make laser links cheap enough!!!"
SpaceX: *Makes laser links cheap enough*
Yeah, they push things so hard. I know it’s a lot of satellites and lasers but the potential impact and market is so massive, that figuring it out over time is worth.
It’s encouraging to see more laser links flying. Can’t wait to hear how these work out.
Bring on the VAndenberg Starlink launches!
Just for the record, there's as yet no evidence that the lasers are cheap.For the record, I said "cheap enough."
...
Just for the record, there's as yet no evidence that the lasers are cheap.For the record, I said "cheap enough."
...
Cheap *enough* that they have over 10 sats with them.
No one uses them operationally, so hundreds of millions of dollars.Just for the record, there's as yet no evidence that the lasers are cheap.For the record, I said "cheap enough."
...
Cheap *enough* that they have over 10 sats with them.
They don't need to be cheap by any stretch of the definition to be on 10 or 20 sats.
What would it cost at full retail price for 20 sats with lasers?
No one uses them operationally, so hundreds of millions of dollars.Just for the record, there's as yet no evidence that the lasers are cheap.For the record, I said "cheap enough."
...
Cheap *enough* that they have over 10 sats with them.
They don't need to be cheap by any stretch of the definition to be on 10 or 20 sats.
What would it cost at full retail price for 20 sats with lasers?
No one uses them operationally, so hundreds of millions of dollars.Just for the record, there's as yet no evidence that the lasers are cheap.For the record, I said "cheap enough."
...
Cheap *enough* that they have over 10 sats with them.
They don't need to be cheap by any stretch of the definition to be on 10 or 20 sats.
What would it cost at full retail price for 20 sats with lasers?
Some info on supposed current prices:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/en7dtx/comment/fdx379d?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
Mynaric is already a very competitive offering comparing to previously flown laser links which cost tens and hundreds of millions of dollars for a much smaller bandwidth (NASA OPALS, ESA EDRS).Again, cheap *enough* already.
Just for the record, there's as yet no evidence that the lasers are cheap.
There's nothing wrong with SpaceX using expensive lasers just to get things up and tested while they continue working on cost.
Of course it could be they already worked it out, we have no idea, I just don't understand all the excitement with zero evidence.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353574169288396800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353574169288396800) only polar get laser comms this yearI read it as only those 10 will have lasers this year. They are 0.9 so I expect significant gap before next polar starlink launch.
An equally valid interpretation is that they're going to be launching a mix this year, with only the polar orbits getting ISL. If they want to push usable service to higher latitudes, they're going to need a lot more that 10 birds in polar orbits. I guess if we see a bunch of Starlink flights leaving from SLC 4E, we'll know.https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353574169288396800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353574169288396800) only polar get laser comms this yearI read it as only those 10 will have lasers this year. They are 0.9 so I expect significant gap before next polar starlink launch.
No one uses them operationally, so hundreds of millions of dollars.Just for the record, there's as yet no evidence that the lasers are cheap.For the record, I said "cheap enough."
...
Cheap *enough* that they have over 10 sats with them.
They don't need to be cheap by any stretch of the definition to be on 10 or 20 sats.
What would it cost at full retail price for 20 sats with lasers?
The ISL are v0.9, which is different from the satellite design being v0.9 (which was the first batch of 60 test Starlinks).
Crossposted:Note that v0.9 designation is only for sats conducting experimentation/testing and v1.x designation is only for operational sats.The ISL are v0.9, which is different from the satellite design being v0.9 (which was the first batch of 60 test Starlinks).
That’s an important distinction.
It’s clear he’s saying that polar Starlinks will all get laser links, even this year. The only way there’ll only be 10 launched with laser links this year (not counting the ~couple test satellites with them) is if they don’t do any more polar Starlink satellites (and I’m pretty certain there are some more polar launches planned in 2021).
There’s nothing unclear about that.
V.09 was for non Ka band sats. It could be that they didn't have room for both ISL and Ka band in the current package.
I don't see star trackers on these sats. Are they integrated with the ISLs now?
It is definitely confusing except the a lowercase v vs an uppercase V designates a minor version as being a part of a larger system (uppercase V). Or more appropriately a V1.09. Finished design of mature sat with ISL would be a V1.1. Remember that the major version identifier 1 states that it launches on F9 vs a 2 which states it launches on Starship. This is currently the versioning rules for Starlink. Don't add confusion about a part version being complete system version. Also that it is likely that a V2.XX sat would also as envisioned would not fit on an F9.V.09 was for non Ka band sats. It could be that they didn't have room for both ISL and Ka band in the current package.
Maybe I read it wrong, but I believe that v0.9 is for the laser interlinks, not satellites. Starlink v1.0 with lasers v0.9
I don't see star trackers on these sats. Are they integrated with the ISLs now?I think the things covered with a red dust cap are the star trackers.
Also someone pointed out to me the Starlinks are plugged in to ground equipment, I think it's the first time we've seen that.A definite GSE for ground checkout prior to encapsulation. The cables are too loose for flight with no quick disconnect features. Looks like an ethernet cable with possible power over ethernet to power sat during checkout so the batteries are not drained down. Probably talks to the Command and Control system for health and telemetry data. Which has to be on so that the sat can receive commands when deployed. Think of the power consumption requirement similar to that of a small tablet in standby mode awaiting a wake up interrupt which a receiver would give when a command is detected. That computer or redundant set is the one that then turns on the other hardware as needed.
SpaceX says it plans to increase Starlink's download speeds from ~100 Mbps currently to 10 Gbps in the future:
There is a disconnected spacecraft side cable dangling next to the spacecraft connector used by each of the GSE cables. It is likely the white dangling connector is from the solar array wing.Also someone pointed out to me the Starlinks are plugged in to ground equipment, I think it's the first time we've seen that.A definite GSE for ground checkout prior to encapsulation. The cables are too loose for flight with no quick disconnect features. Looks like an ethernet cable with possible power over ethernet to power sat during checkout so the batteries are not drained down. Probably talks to the Command and Control system for health and telemetry data. Which has to be on so that the sat can receive commands when deployed. Think of the power consumption requirement similar to that of a small tablet in standby mode awaiting a wake up interrupt which a receiver would give when a command is detected. That computer or redundant set is the one that then turns on the other hardware as needed.
https://www.twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1353830516617863168QuoteSpaceX says it plans to increase Starlink's download speeds from ~100 Mbps currently to 10 Gbps in the future:
https://www.twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1353830516617863168QuoteSpaceX says it plans to increase Starlink's download speeds from ~100 Mbps currently to 10 Gbps in the future:
I would think many more than just 10 satellites will be needed in polar orbits to provide continuous, full coverage in these regions. Or am I missing something?
SpaceX says it plans to increase Starlink's download speeds from ~100 Mbps currently to 10 Gbps in the future:
QuoteSpaceX says it plans to increase Starlink's download speeds from ~100 Mbps currently to 10 Gbps in the future:
I understand correctly that these 10 Gbps will be satellites in the V band 37.5..42.5 GHz??
Or multiplexing multiple links from multiple satellites. If you have 100 satellites in view, you could have beams from each of them, giving you ~100 times the bandwidth.Just requires a much more advanced phased array or even possibly use of several phased arrays. Note that even now a simple little upgrade can double the data rate from 100Mbs to 200Mbps by using both the right and left circular polarized channels in a single beam and frequency connection to a sat. So actually only need 50 beams and 50 sats to get to 10Gbps. So a new phased array that can track 20 sats with full communications activity on 10 of them such that a single phased array would give the capability of 2Gbps (the minimum subscription <$99/month). Then by adding additional antennas on a more capable router that can coordinate the actions of multiple antennas such that by having 5 antennas and one probably more of a rack unit quality redundant router you get 10Gbps (high end business class subscription a possible just $300/month). Only software upgrades on sats as well as a increase in number of spots with increased frequency reuse on each sat with many spots. Such that instead of 20 channels per sat up to 2,000 channels per sat. Requires new phased arrays with 10X more beams per array as well as 5 to 10 times the number of phased arrays. Which also means some 10X larger solar array or as much as 20kw.
Spatial multiplexing for the win!
Also note that just by increasing the data rate from 100Mbps to 500Mbs on a just slightly upgraded phased array that communicates on 1 beam and tracks another it would be possible to offer as a minimum a up to 1Gbps data rate. This could be offered to subscribers even now in low subscriber density areas such as 1 subscriber per >10km^2 (400 subscribers in >4,000km^2). No new sat equipment needed no upgrades except ISL on orbit and except a slight upgrade of the UT data rate to half the beam 1Gbps stream that exists currently.
Yes. Each sat channel has 1Gbps already. but in order to support as much as 100 subscribers per that channel in a area that is illuminated by that spot the effective data rate was limited to 100Mbps. It is a matter of sharing. Also each beam at each frequency has 2 channels a right and left circularized channel. So just need to modems one for each of the 2 circularizations to even now easily double the data rate from 100Mbps. But there is also an interesting thing about the over subscription rate to the effective data rates. The oversubscription value is a function of the effective average amount of data access over some peak period as in TV primetime (evenings 5 hour period). This then determines how many subscribers can be supported on the channel without complaints (or much complaint). So even if you increased the data bit rate you may still have nearly the same number of subscribers per channel. Such that even with the same number of same generation sats but upgraded UT's you may still have the same number of supportable subscribers.Also note that just by increasing the data rate from 100Mbps to 500Mbs on a just slightly upgraded phased array that communicates on 1 beam and tracks another it would be possible to offer as a minimum a up to 1Gbps data rate. This could be offered to subscribers even now in low subscriber density areas such as 1 subscriber per >10km^2 (400 subscribers in >4,000km^2). No new sat equipment needed no upgrades except ISL on orbit and except a slight upgrade of the UT data rate to half the beam 1Gbps stream that exists currently.
So if I'm following you, then the poor bandwidth problem gets flipped on it's head. That if you're a lone person in some very isolated location (arctic, middle of an ocean, etc) they could have some of the fastest bandwidth of anyone on earth?
There is every incentive for SpaceX to have its own backbone.The difference in cost of placing a disconnected groundstation within reach of every potential US customer to getting backbone access within reach of everyone is massive.With a modest range of say 500 miles there is no technical need for disconnected ground stations. Even the remote parts of western North Dakota can be served by ground stations in Billings or Fargo, or Denver or Winnipeg, were there are backbones.
Starlink may want to handle the backhaul themselves so they can negotiate more favorable peering agreements, but they don't have to unless there is massive collusion between many different geographically diverse internet companies.
There is every incentive for SpaceX to have its own backbone.The difference in cost of placing a disconnected groundstation within reach of every potential US customer to getting backbone access within reach of everyone is massive.With a modest range of say 500 miles there is no technical need for disconnected ground stations. Even the remote parts of western North Dakota can be served by ground stations in Billings or Fargo, or Denver or Winnipeg, were there are backbones.
Starlink may want to handle the backhaul themselves so they can negotiate more favorable peering agreements, but they don't have to unless there is massive collusion between many different geographically diverse internet companies.
1 - End users geographically between ground stations will likely flip between ground stations. This can't be handled by BGP routing. Heck this isn't convenient to handle with routing at all. How do you allocate IPs in blocks between stations ?
When you have your own continent backbone you can handle all special characteristics of SL for routing/switching traffic.
2 - Its so much cheaper to lease dark fiber or 100G ptp ethernet links between stations than to purchase transit.
2 - You need a global network to peer with the big boys.
3 - Its much cheaper to purchase a dozens of 100G worldwide transit links than to purchase 100s of 10G transit links. And the price of those might be cheaper in some primary locations even if the transit provider has its own leased fiber going through SL ground stations.
Fastest bandwidth to the satellites (and whatever they have cached) yes, but there still is transit time to whatever terrestrial assets you want to communicate with... Intersatellite links rather than bent pipe routing will speed that up enormouslyAlso note that just by increasing the data rate from 100Mbps to 500Mbs on a just slightly upgraded phased array that communicates on 1 beam and tracks another it would be possible to offer as a minimum a up to 1Gbps data rate. This could be offered to subscribers even now in low subscriber density areas such as 1 subscriber per >10km^2 (400 subscribers in >4,000km^2). No new sat equipment needed no upgrades except ISL on orbit and except a slight upgrade of the UT data rate to half the beam 1Gbps stream that exists currently.
So if I'm following you, then the poor bandwidth problem gets flipped on it's head. That if you're a lone person in some very isolated location (arctic, middle of an ocean, etc) they could have some of the fastest bandwidth of anyone on earth?
BTW, it occurs to me that space comms has the advantage of not needing to be bound by optical wavelengths that propagate well in fiber or even air. Currently, around 1300nm is probably most common for fiber optics as it has the lowest losses in fiber. But vacuum doesn’t scatter or absorb light, so they could in principle go all the way to the vacuum UV, like a 126nm Excimer laser, to get more theoretical frequency bandwidth. That means even smaller apertures are required or, equivalently, much higher gains. “Tight beam” as they say in The Expanse. ;)Tangentially related to this but something just occurred to me, and you seem to have the knowledge. Imagine a future scenario with thousands of satellites talking to each other with laser links (of whatever wavelength). Will there a) be significant "overspill" beyond the target satellite (ie how well targeted and collimated can you get?) and b) would this be of sufficient intensity to interfere with sensitive optical orbital assets (be that astronomical or earth observation)? I'm assuming the power levels aren't high enough but just wondering.
BTW, it occurs to me that space comms has the advantage of not needing to be bound by optical wavelengths that propagate well in fiber or even air. Currently, around 1300nm is probably most common for fiber optics as it has the lowest losses in fiber. But vacuum doesn’t scatter or absorb light, so they could in principle go all the way to the vacuum UV, like a 126nm Excimer laser, to get more theoretical frequency bandwidth. That means even smaller apertures are required or, equivalently, much higher gains. “Tight beam” as they say in The Expanse. ;)Tangentially related to this but something just occurred to me, and you seem to have the knowledge. Imagine a future scenario with thousands of satellites talking to each other with laser links (of whatever wavelength). Will there a) be significant "overspill" beyond the target satellite (ie how well targeted and collimated can you get?) and b) would this be of sufficient intensity to interfere with sensitive optical orbital assets (be that astronomical or earth observation)? I'm assuming the power levels aren't high enough but just wondering.
For interference, you’d need to be hitting the sensor, and half the point of a laser is that it’s tightly collimated. It really, really shouldn’t be an issue - you’d have to literally cross a Starlink beam (which will mostly be between two Starlinks) with your sensor facing the right way. That’s a tiny line.
SpaceX looks to build next-generation Starlink internet satellites after launching 1,000 so far
PUBLISHED FRI, JAN 29 20211:46 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ
KEY POINTS
SpaceX is preparing to begin production of the next-generation of its Starlink internet satellites, according to a company job posting.
Elon Musk’s company is looking to hire a lead software engineer for Starlink hardware testing, specifically to create a “define and lead [the] test software roadmap for Starlink v1.5 and v2.0 production.”
SpaceX so far has been building v0.9 and v1.0 Starlink satellites, with 1,023 satellites deployed over the course of 18 launches.
Starlink is SpaceX’s ambitious project to build an interconnected internet network with thousands of satellites, to deliver high-speed internet to consumers anywhere on the planet.
big snip
Downward pointing observation sats probably won't have interference, as it's unlikely the comm sats would be pointing their lasers up into the aperture of the instrument
With about 3 months to get the 10 SSO sats in operational position and a month of tests. Will generate sufficient data to finish designs for the v1.5 sats which would probably start deployment ~Jan 2022. Followed likely a year or slightly more latter with V2.0 once Starship has successfully flown and deployed at least afew V1.5 sats and followed by a few prototype V2.0. Once successful with deployment of V2.0 and their operation. Starship and V2.0 will be the only sats and F9 would no longer be used in Starlink deployments.
Which brings up how Starship would deploy sats into SSO? Launch from 39A on a similar launch profile to that of Transporter-1. But can you image a Starship flying down close to the coast?
Sat generations:
V1.0 first launch in 2019.
V1.0 total launched by EOY 2021 before start of V1.5 launches >2,000 sats
V1.5 first launch in 2022 (3 years after first V1.0, an upgrade of the first generation sat not a new generation because sat size [volume] unchanged but mass increased to add new features such as ISL and possibly some other components upgrades)
V1.5 total launched before discontinued in favor of V2.0 sats ~1,500 sats
Total of sats launched by EOY 2022 > 3,000 (NOTE these are the first licence sats with just Ku and Ka band whose 50% milestone of 2,200 sats by April 2024 will have been reached the year before or at worst in 2022.
V2.0 first launch in 2023 (Starlink true second generation sats 4 years after first V1.0 first generation sats)
Will need to launch 4,000 sats with V band very quickly to reach the 50% milestone by the Nov 2024 date. It is also possible that the V1.5 sats may have a V band transmitter option.
It will be an interesting time to see how SpaceX logistically manages the fill out of the two Ku/Ka band and the V band constellation to meet the ultimate goals by April 2027 and Nov 2027 for the 4,400 and the 8,000 sat totals. The two are different implementations of the same basic ssat with different frequencies and orbits. So each of the sat counts are in themselves exclusive of the other.
Something else I've been thinking about... Starship may make it economical to switch over to chemical propulsion.
Because a switch can easily handle one million MACs at wire speed with very little power consumption.Switches, in contrast, are typically (not always, but typically) "cut-through" devices: As a packet begins to be received on the input line, the switch selects the output line for it and feeds the packet straight to it. The amount of buffering is only a few bytes of cache between the input and output drivers.<Jim>No.</Jim>
These days for the data path the only real difference between a switch/bridge and router is how the underlying packet forwarding chip is programmed -- does it look at L2 headers, L3 headers, both, something else, etc.
Some switches and routers can be programmed to do cut-through if input & output port are the same speed and the output port is idle and the phase of the moon is right when the packet arrives -- otherwise the packet gets stored into a buffer & into a queue.
you may be confusing switches with the now-deprecated ethernet hubs which only did "cut-through" -- they were common back in the 10mbps era and more or less disappeared part way through the 100mbps era.
Cut-through is not the same as a hub. A hub is a layer 1 device, replicating signals driven by one line onto the others. This is indeed obsolete.
My point was that it doesn't make much sense for satellites to be switches. I guess you could do L2 store-and-forward, but I can't think for the life of me why you would.
Something else I've been thinking about... Starship may make it economical to switch over to chemical propulsion.I may be way off on this but I think a lot of the time it takes to raise to orbit is 1) Getting 20 sats spread out to fill the plane and 2) allowing time for the low orbit to precess to the next plane so another 20 can start doing step 1. Repeat 2 for the last 20.
We know that the rough cost estimates for Starlink sats are ~$500k per sat.
The majority of that cost is launch cost. Let's say ~$350k/sat to launch, and ~$200k tp make them.
Chemical propulsion would probably increase the mass of the satellite by ~20%. With the equation above, that would raise the per-satellite launch costs by $70,000 per sat. Chemical propulsion would have to drop the cost of satellite manufacturing by 30% in order to paper over.... unlikely.
However, with Starship, If the marginal cost of launch is in the $5-10m range, the launch cost per satellite drops to around $15,000!
A 20% increase in mass would only increase the per-satellite launch cost by about $3,000 (!)... would switching to chemical propulsion reduce costs by that much? I think it's certainly possible.
Chemical propulsion would also have other advantages too. The month it takes raising orbits would be reduced to days at most. It would also be superior for collision avoidance by virtue of the higher thrust. Also, with chemical propulsion, you could much better target where it deorbits, reducing the atmospheric burnup needed.
Good reasons for staying away from hypergolic. A lot of NSF speculation on SX plans has included both MethaLOX and MethOX engines of various sizes and electric pumps (there go the PV and battery savings.)Something else I've been thinking about... Starship may make it economical to switch over to chemical propulsion.
I agree that high thrust propulsion is quite valuable, but I think chemical propulsion's cost is much more than the cost of launching additional mass. For example if you use hypergolics, the fuel is expensive, and handling is also expensive due to toxicity.
Yes, you get it!Because a switch can easily handle one million MACs at wire speed with very little power consumption.Switches, in contrast, are typically (not always, but typically) "cut-through" devices: As a packet begins to be received on the input line, the switch selects the output line for it and feeds the packet straight to it. The amount of buffering is only a few bytes of cache between the input and output drivers.<Jim>No.</Jim>
These days for the data path the only real difference between a switch/bridge and router is how the underlying packet forwarding chip is programmed -- does it look at L2 headers, L3 headers, both, something else, etc.
Some switches and routers can be programmed to do cut-through if input & output port are the same speed and the output port is idle and the phase of the moon is right when the packet arrives -- otherwise the packet gets stored into a buffer & into a queue.
you may be confusing switches with the now-deprecated ethernet hubs which only did "cut-through" -- they were common back in the 10mbps era and more or less disappeared part way through the 100mbps era.
Cut-through is not the same as a hub. A hub is a layer 1 device, replicating signals driven by one line onto the others. This is indeed obsolete.
My point was that it doesn't make much sense for satellites to be switches. I guess you could do L2 store-and-forward, but I can't think for the life of me why you would.
A full BGP router that can handle the full IPv4 and IPv6 routing tables is a far more expensive beast because ip routes vary from /7 to /24, and for each packet you need to do dozens of lookups (once for each netmask) or have a route cache that keeps the most frequently looked up ips.
All of this requires a lot more silicon and power to run, specially at 40Gbps speeds.
And in the end, every router must also be a switch, with L2 forwarding inside subnets.
But instead the user equipment and gateways could be the routers, with the user equipment just knowing a default gateway and receiving route redirects in case the user equipment is trying to talk to another equipment that is directly connected to the L2 switch and it can send directly.
40Gbit full BGP is easy and cheap. For reference: A FortiGate 60F firewall can do 10Gbit/s full BGP in 17W, including an 8 core ARM CPU, Co-processors for content inspection, hardware encryption/decryption for 6,5Gb/s IPSEC traffic, 10 NICs, and the conversion from mains power to 12v. All this in a 1L 1kg unit.Because a switch can easily handle one million MACs at wire speed with very little power consumption.Switches, in contrast, are typically (not always, but typically) "cut-through" devices: As a packet begins to be received on the input line, the switch selects the output line for it and feeds the packet straight to it. The amount of buffering is only a few bytes of cache between the input and output drivers.<Jim>No.</Jim>
These days for the data path the only real difference between a switch/bridge and router is how the underlying packet forwarding chip is programmed -- does it look at L2 headers, L3 headers, both, something else, etc.
Some switches and routers can be programmed to do cut-through if input & output port are the same speed and the output port is idle and the phase of the moon is right when the packet arrives -- otherwise the packet gets stored into a buffer & into a queue.
you may be confusing switches with the now-deprecated ethernet hubs which only did "cut-through" -- they were common back in the 10mbps era and more or less disappeared part way through the 100mbps era.
Cut-through is not the same as a hub. A hub is a layer 1 device, replicating signals driven by one line onto the others. This is indeed obsolete.
My point was that it doesn't make much sense for satellites to be switches. I guess you could do L2 store-and-forward, but I can't think for the life of me why you would.
A full BGP router that can handle the full IPv4 and IPv6 routing tables is a far more expensive beast because ip routes vary from /7 to /24, and for each packet you need to do dozens of lookups (once for each netmask) or have a route cache that keeps the most frequently looked up ips.
All of this requires a lot more silicon and power to run, specially at 40Gbps speeds.
And in the end, every router must also be a switch, with L2 forwarding inside subnets.
But instead the user equipment and gateways could be the routers, with the user equipment just knowing a default gateway and receiving route redirects in case the user equipment is trying to talk to another equipment that is directly connected to the L2 switch and it can send directly.
Because a switch can easily handle one million MACs at wire speed with very little power consumption.
A full BGP router that can handle the full IPv4 and IPv6 routing tables is a far more expensive beast because ip routes vary from /7 to /24, and for each packet you need to do dozens of lookups (once for each netmask) or have a route cache that keeps the most frequently looked up ips.
All of this requires a lot more silicon and power to run, specially at 40Gbps speeds.
And in the end, every router must also be a switch, with L2 forwarding inside subnets.
But instead the user equipment and gateways could be the routers, with the user equipment just knowing a default gateway and receiving route redirects in case the user equipment is trying to talk to another equipment that is directly connected to the L2 switch and it can send directly.
I saw a map from a user of this forum posted at:
https://spaceq.ca/initial-spacex-starlink-service-in-canada-will-be-limited/
Can someone please point me toward more information about what's necessary for Starlink to spread into northern Canada, and particularly the Northwest Territories? I am trying to learn about Ka approval as well as the ground station requirements.
Thanks a lot!
Starlink has 1021 satellites out of 1584 approved for the current orbital parameters. This means only more 10 launches to go until they are stuck on FCC approvals, correct?
There is a chance that this blockage will actually happen in ~3-4 months from now. SpaceX will either have to stop launching or fly to 1100km orbits.
Starlink has 1021 satellites out of 1584 approved for the current orbital parameters. This means only more 10 launches to go until they are stuck on FCC approvals, correct?
There is a chance that this blockage will actually happen in ~3-4 months from now. SpaceX will either have to stop launching or fly to 1100km orbits.
Nope. More like the third option: FCC approves additional satellites.
The Elon Musk-fronted SpaceX has told an Australian parliamentary committee that it could begin to offer its Starlink broadband services to the nations external territories as early as 2022, while much of Australia will be covered in "early 2021".
...
"The more remote islands and the southernmost Heard Island and McDonald Islands will require deployment of polar-orbiting satellites employing inter-satellite optical links, a technology that allows customers to be even farther removed from supporting ground infrastructure," SpaceX said.
"More satellites on orbit are needed in order to provide continuous services to those locations, likely nearer to the end of 2022."
For educational purposes, here are contemporary quotes from ViaSat and HughesNet. Installation(from memory) tends to be cheaper than $500 (if they charge at all). I'm curious what kind of commitment comes attached to the $500 up front fee.I see. So Starlink will suck up virtually all their customers at those prices. Those companies each make about $2 billion in revenue apiece.
SpaceX is gonna make SO much money...
(Notice the HughesNet one requires a 24 month commitment, and the prices for the other one are only for the first 3 months...)
For educational purposes, here are contemporary quotes from ViaSat and HughesNet. Installation(from memory) tends to be cheaper than $500 (if they charge at all). I'm curious what kind of commitment comes attached to the $500 up front fee.I see. So Starlink will suck up virtually all their customers at those prices. Those companies each make about $2 billion in revenue apiece.
SpaceX is gonna make SO much money...
(Notice the HughesNet one requires a 24 month commitment, and the prices for the other one are only for the first 3 months...)
Pursuant to actually measurable affects, Viasat lost ~7,000 fixed U.S. subscribers last quarter (603K ->596K) or ~1.1%. At that rate, it will take ~85 quarters or 21-22 years to reach 0. Echostar should report in the next week or two.
source: http://investors.viasat.com/static-files/b273f869-6a88-4853-9ae9-6edf634e71f6
For educational purposes, here are contemporary quotes from ViaSat and HughesNet. Installation(from memory) tends to be cheaper than $500 (if they charge at all). I'm curious what kind of commitment comes attached to the $500 up front fee.I see. So Starlink will suck up virtually all their customers at those prices. Those companies each make about $2 billion in revenue apiece.
SpaceX is gonna make SO much money...
(Notice the HughesNet one requires a 24 month commitment, and the prices for the other one are only for the first 3 months...)
Pursuant to actually measurable affects, Viasat lost ~7,000 fixed U.S. subscribers last quarter (603K ->596K) or ~1.1%. At that rate, it will take ~85 quarters or 21-22 years to reach 0. Echostar should report in the next week or two.
source: http://investors.viasat.com/static-files/b273f869-6a88-4853-9ae9-6edf634e71f6
Uhm, so you are extrapolating the Viasat rate of decline during the Starlink limited Beta phase to predict the future rate of decline as Starlink reaches full operational capacity? Sure, that makes perfect sense🙄.
Literally a post or two above we see that Starlink has 10000 users as of now. Compared to the tens of millions the full system is designed for. Might want to consider revising that extrapolation a tad.
Deposit.
Deposit Payment. Your deposit payment (“Deposit Payment”) grants you priority within your region for securing Starlink Services when available. Your Deposit Payment is exclusive of any sales and use or other taxes. SpaceX will apply your Deposit Payment to the amount due on the Starlink Kit if and when the Starlink Kit and Services become available to you.
Refundable Deposit. Prior to SpaceX shipping your Kit, your Deposit Payment is fully refundable and can be requested at any time via your Starlink account. If you seek and obtain a refund, you will forfeit your priority position.
Availability; Limitations. Placing a Deposit Payment does not obligate SpaceX to provide you with the Starlink Kit and Services and does not guarantee that the Starlink Kit and Services will be available to you. Enrollment limits may apply. Starlink Kit designs and Services are subject to change based on technological innovation. The Service availability dates are estimates only and subject to change. SpaceX does not guarantee when Services will actually be available in your region. Service delivery is dependent on many factors, including various regulatory approvals.
According to a Reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/lfjdgp/starlink_taking_99_deposits/) Starlink is taking $99 deposits. People as far south as 30N are getting in with service promised "mid to late 2021".
Someone also linked a terms and conditions page (https://www.starlink.com/legal/terms-of-service-preorder?regionCode=US)QuoteDeposit.
Deposit Payment. Your deposit payment (“Deposit Payment”) grants you priority within your region for securing Starlink Services when available. Your Deposit Payment is exclusive of any sales and use or other taxes. SpaceX will apply your Deposit Payment to the amount due on the Starlink Kit if and when the Starlink Kit and Services become available to you.
Refundable Deposit. Prior to SpaceX shipping your Kit, your Deposit Payment is fully refundable and can be requested at any time via your Starlink account. If you seek and obtain a refund, you will forfeit your priority position.
Availability; Limitations. Placing a Deposit Payment does not obligate SpaceX to provide you with the Starlink Kit and Services and does not guarantee that the Starlink Kit and Services will be available to you. Enrollment limits may apply. Starlink Kit designs and Services are subject to change based on technological innovation. The Service availability dates are estimates only and subject to change. SpaceX does not guarantee when Services will actually be available in your region. Service delivery is dependent on many factors, including various regulatory approvals.
I saw a map from a user of this forum posted at:
https://spaceq.ca/initial-spacex-starlink-service-in-canada-will-be-limited/
Can someone please point me toward more information about what's necessary for Starlink to spread into northern Canada, and particularly the Northwest Territories? I am trying to learn about Ka approval as well as the ground station requirements.
Thanks a lot!
SpaceX uses Ka-band to communicate between the satellite and the gateway (ground station). They use Ku-band to communicate between the satellite and the user. The have US and Canadian approval for those frequencies, and either have or have applied for ITU permission. SpaceX has applied for modifications of the planned constellation which is leading to a lot of rework on the licensing. To communicate with users in northern Canada they need to deploy satellites that go closer to the poles, and licensing for those is part of their pending changes (SpaceX wants to lower the altitudes of the satellites). They will also need more ground stations in Canada eventually. The speed at which that can be done will depend on the Canadian government. It took years for one company to get a ground station approved, but that may have been a special case since they were doing earth imaging and not communications.
You can find links to some relevant documents in the Starlink Index Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48981.0).
You can now order Starlink! Hopefully the price comes down for us 🇨🇦 soon though 😬 @elonmusktwitter.com/elonmusk/status/1358964520522162176
It’s meant to be the same price in all countries. Only difference should be taxes & shipping.
I beseech you to offer Starlink at a lower price in some developing countries considering that they may not be able to afford the services?
I think that you care a lot about the fact that many don’t have internet access in 2021.
🥺
👉🏼 👈🏼
SpaceX needs to pass through a deep chasm of negative cash flow over the next year or so to make Starlink financially viable. Every new satellite constellation in history has gone bankrupt. We hope to be the first that does not.
Starlink is a staggeringly difficult technical & economic endeavor. However, if we don’t fail, the cost to end users will improve every year.
Once we can predict cash flow reasonably well, Starlink will IPO
even with 12,000 satellites, even with the ability to concentrate coverage, Starlink is modeled to come up short to meet RDOF.
It appears to be a useless report because, for instance, it assumes a 17-23 Gbps per satellite bandwidth in 2028, even with the added v-band. This seems unrealistic, given the SpaceX's demonstrated pace of iteration.
It appears to be a useless report because, for instance, it assumes a 17-23 Gbps per satellite bandwidth in 2028, even with the added v-band. This seems unrealistic, given the SpaceX's demonstrated pace of iteration.
You're assuming the V-band constellation will actually happen. I'm not so sure about that. Regardless of the V-band situation, that report, which was commissioned by SpaceX competitors, is not so great. It doesn't use the correct orbital planes (for either the existing or proposed constellation layouts).
Got notification of availability yesterday. I'm at 39.97N.According to a Reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/lfjdgp/starlink_taking_99_deposits/) Starlink is taking $99 deposits. People as far south as 30N are getting in with service promised "mid to late 2021".
Someone also linked a terms and conditions page (https://www.starlink.com/legal/terms-of-service-preorder?regionCode=US)QuoteDeposit.
Deposit Payment. Your deposit payment (“Deposit Payment”) grants you priority within your region for securing Starlink Services when available. Your Deposit Payment is exclusive of any sales and use or other taxes. SpaceX will apply your Deposit Payment to the amount due on the Starlink Kit if and when the Starlink Kit and Services become available to you.
Refundable Deposit. Prior to SpaceX shipping your Kit, your Deposit Payment is fully refundable and can be requested at any time via your Starlink account. If you seek and obtain a refund, you will forfeit your priority position.
Availability; Limitations. Placing a Deposit Payment does not obligate SpaceX to provide you with the Starlink Kit and Services and does not guarantee that the Starlink Kit and Services will be available to you. Enrollment limits may apply. Starlink Kit designs and Services are subject to change based on technological innovation. The Service availability dates are estimates only and subject to change. SpaceX does not guarantee when Services will actually be available in your region. Service delivery is dependent on many factors, including various regulatory approvals.
Thanks for the heads up!
One would have thought that being in the Beta program would have at least resulted in an alert email when pre-orders were opened, but noooooooo......
>:(
This looks like it has some pretty bogus assumptions to me. The two most dubious points I've included below. Both are used to claim the average user will use 10x the data they do now. First, they note the average user today uses about 2.0 Mbps/sec (estimated range 1.7-2.7). They bump this to 3.6 by taking the top of the range and adding 25% for "margin". Note that they themselves show no units on their "Hourly Network Downstream Traffic" on page 5, likely since it would show rates that Starlink can easily match.Quoteeven with 12,000 satellites, even with the ability to concentrate coverage, Starlink is modeled to come up short to meet RDOF.
Very poorly coded web pages, ads and spyware.
The biggest hole in their argument, to me, is what would drive this increased bandwidth.
Got notification of availability yesterday. I'm at 39.97N.I'm even farther south, in Albuquerque, NM at 35.17N
*******
Starlink is now available in limited supply in your service area.
I'm happy but very concerned about reports that the dishy requires 100W. If that's continuous 24/7/365 I'll be signing off quickly. Does anyone have any deeper info on power consumption?
Detroit area -
Just received invitation a few minutes ago and signed up immediately ($99 deposit). Received confirmation email - "Starlink will begin offering service in your area beginning mid to late 2021. Orders will be fulfilled on a first-come, first-served basis. You will be notified via email prior to shipment, and you will be charged the remainder of your balance once your kit ships."
I'm happy but very concerned about reports that the dishy requires 100W. If that's continuous 24/7/365 I'll be signing off quickly. Does anyone have any deeper info on power consumption?
Detroit area -
Just received invitation a few minutes ago and signed up immediately ($99 deposit). Received confirmation email - "Starlink will begin offering service in your area beginning mid to late 2021. Orders will be fulfilled on a first-come, first-served basis. You will be notified via email prior to shipment, and you will be charged the remainder of your balance once your kit ships."
I'm happy but very concerned about reports that the dishy requires 100W. If that's continuous 24/7/365 I'll be signing off quickly. Does anyone have any deeper info on power consumption?
That 100W sounds not much more than what my Dish/Router/Modem pulls right now for standard satellite, so it's competitive. I also think, but do not know for certain, that Starlink does not pull it's full wattage rating unless it is running its anti-ice heater.
But all in all, we're still talking to things in orbit here, so it's going to use some power.
This looks like it has some pretty bogus assumptions to me. The two most dubious points I've included below. Both are used to claim the average user will use 10x the data they do now. First, they note the average user today uses about 2.0 Mbps/sec (estimated range 1.7-2.7). They bump this to 3.6 by taking the top of the range and adding 25% for "margin". Note that they themselves show no units on their "Hourly Network Downstream Traffic" on page 5, likely since it would show rates that Starlink can easily match.Quoteeven with 12,000 satellites, even with the ability to concentrate coverage, Starlink is modeled to come up short to meet RDOF.
Then they scale their peak usage with margin by 30% per year to get a demand in 2028 of 20.8 Mbps/sec per user. Then they note if the average subscriber in 2028 uses 10x the data of today, the Starlink network might have trouble with aggregate bandwidth.
The biggest hole in their argument, to me, is what would drive this increased bandwidth. The only data they back this up with is a Cisco estimate that the percentage of HD video will go up from 12% of all video to 22%, and HD video takes 30-40% more bandwidth. This shift only drives the total bandwidth up by 5%. Then they point out the average house will have 50% more devices (8.4 ->13.6). But presumably most of these will not be video; one person can watch only so many videos at a time. Finally, intuitively it's hard for me to see people being on-line, with video, much more than they are during the present unfortunate pandemic. Basically all children, and a very substantial fraction of adults, are already on line more than they want to be, with video. I can't see this portion of the market growing by 10x over the next 7 years.
So unless they can make a better case where all this demand might come from, I don't think they have a serious argument. By the way, I think their estimates of increased demand *will* hold for companies. Companies can justify lots of instrumentation and video, and then ship it to data centers to be analyzed. So I could see corporate traffic rising a factor of 10, so fiber will need the additional capacity. But this is not Starlink's market.
RESPONSIBILITIES:
In this role, you will triage, troubleshoot, and resolve customer issues. You will analyze trends, identify gaps, and design simple, effective support interventions that improve our customers' experience. We're looking for excellent problem solvers who move quickly and proactively, and are obsessed with the success of our customers. This role is ideal for someone looking join a scrappy, early-stage Support team and set the tone for how we help our customers.
* Triage and resolve customer issues across multiple channels (digital, voice, etc.). Be a relentless internal advocate for the customer within SpaceX
* Provide technical support to customers using hardware, software, and network expertise
* Surface product, process, and training issues by pairing quantitative and qualitative methods. Be the voice of the customer, in the language of the business
* Collaborate with internal teams to create and improve troubleshooting workflows and resolve root cause issues
* Create and maintain internal knowledge base and help center collateral
SpaceX is recruiting bilingual Customer Support Associate for Starlink:
Or Texas! Also consumer support is likely different as far as ITAR is concerned.SpaceX is recruiting bilingual Customer Support Associate for Starlink:
I saw some of those a few weeks ago and wondered how cumbersome working with ITAR will be for Starlink. If you need to have so many multilingual support people, LA is as good of place as any. But very expensive.
Or Texas! Also consumer support is likely different as far as ITAR is concerned.SpaceX is recruiting bilingual Customer Support Associate for Starlink:
I saw some of those a few weeks ago and wondered how cumbersome working with ITAR will be for Starlink. If you need to have so many multilingual support people, LA is as good of place as any. But very expensive.
Well, it IS simpler. That may change as Starlink gets larger and they need access to a larger hiring pool of customer support personnel.Or Texas! Also consumer support is likely different as far as ITAR is concerned.SpaceX is recruiting bilingual Customer Support Associate for Starlink:
I saw some of those a few weeks ago and wondered how cumbersome working with ITAR will be for Starlink. If you need to have so many multilingual support people, LA is as good of place as any. But very expensive.
I would have thought so, but all of the consumer support hiring so far has been within the ITAR perimeter.
I really doubt the customer service jobs would have anything to do with ITAR. They're going through a checklist of possible problems with consumer electronics, not designing the satellites/antennas. A company building their initial customer service group in their home country is really not too surprising.
You might see much higher download speeds on Starlink at times. Testing system upgrades.
When will it come to the Bay? Still end of 2021
Probably mid year, but Starlink is really meant for those who are least served. Bay usually has great Internet.
Ever consider a mini Starlink designed around portability?
Sounds like a good idea
Yup, and the firewall ends up having a bunch of overhead.
Having to operate in a low trust environment has a very large overhead. An analogy from technology: You can see this by comparing trustless ledgers that require Gigawatts to secure at just 7 transactions per second versus the same thing that could run on an Arduino or something for under a single watt if you have high trust.
[...] my parents in law had a terrible internet connection in the country side. [..] they got a new connection that upgrades from terrible to acceptable, so I cant even justify the expense any more. [...]This one is likely just coincidence, but I think the effect of competition will be real. Starlink will upgrade service to many folks who never use it, just by being a competitive high speed provider.
As far as I understand. The purchase the "pizza dish" mechanical parts "case" and mounting.
Judging from the job listings over the past year or so, SpaceX is surprisingly vertically integrated on this. For instance, they were hiring for injection molding in Hawthorne. I assume that they ultimately decided to buy rather than build on this type of stuff, but who knows. They do have the old Triumph factory to fill out.
To keep up with global demand, SpaceX is breaking ground on a new, state of the art manufacturing facility in Austin, TX.
I just noticed a couple of job postings for a new Starlink factory in Austin. Not sure if this was already known, but it was new to me.Seems to indicate a vertically integrated "pizza dish" manufacturing line. Complete with IC packaging and IC placement on circuit boards. Possible multiple ICs integrated into a single IC package for higher circuit density. As well as less customized specific ICs made by a foundry. The line looks to be a highly robotic manufacturing line. Such a Line could easily ramp to a million UTs per year. Also a very high production rate and a lower overhead (being in Texas vs California or Washington) would decrease costs of the UT tremendously.
https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/5111363002
https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/5111172002QuoteTo keep up with global demand, SpaceX is breaking ground on a new, state of the art manufacturing facility in Austin, TX.
SpaceX and Dish Network are fighting at the Federal Communications Commission over Dish's attempt to block a key designation that SpaceX's Starlink division needs in order to get FCC broadband funding.
A SpaceX filing submitted yesterday said that Dish's "baseless attempt" to block funding "would serve only to delay what matters most—connecting unserved Americans." While Dish says it has valid concerns about interference in the 12 GHz band, SpaceX described Dish's complaint to the FCC as a "facially spurious filing" that "is only the latest example of Dish's abuse of Commission resources in its misguided effort to expropriate the 12 GHz band."
I have noob question. Does dish move while internet is online. Or it moves only while setup?Only for setup.
I have noob question. Does dish move while internet is online. Or it moves only while setup?It might move on occasion as the system and usage changes, but not often. Sats in one direction could get more congested than in another. Repointing while online depends on how tracking works.
Should SpaceX receive the FCC's $886M subsidy to provide broadband to underserved areas from orbit? @emilychangtv asks FCC acting chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel https://trib.al/BmEZYQH
Starlink is now available in limited supply in Germany!
Starlink is now available in limited supply in Germany! Initial beta service will be activated in parts of the western region and expand rapidly across the rest of the country.
Users can expect to see data speeds vary from 50Mb/s to 150Mb/s over the next several months as we enhance the Starlink system. There will also be brief periods of no connectivity at all.
As we launch more satellites, install more ground stations and improve our networking software, data speed, latency and uptime will improve dramatically.
Detroit area -
Just received invitation a few minutes ago and signed up immediately ($99 deposit). Received confirmation email - "Starlink will begin offering service in your area beginning mid to late 2021. Orders will be fulfilled on a first-come, first-served basis. You will be notified via email prior to shipment, and you will be charged the remainder of your balance once your kit ships."
I'm happy but very concerned about reports that the dishy requires 100W. If that's continuous 24/7/365 I'll be signing off quickly. Does anyone have any deeper info on power consumption?
That 100W sounds not much more than what my Dish/Router/Modem pulls right now for standard satellite, so it's competitive. I also think, but do not know for certain, that Starlink does not pull it's full wattage rating unless it is running its anti-ice heater.
But all in all, we're still talking to things in orbit here, so it's going to use some power.
My Starlink has averaged 98.4 watts over the last 11 days since I put it on the power monitor, with a peak draw of 185 W. It's been very cold, between -10 and 24 F, and snowy so I think the dish heater has been running most of that time.
I put it back on the power monitor for 8 hours, and it still is averaging about 100 W even when ambient temperatures are around 50-60 F.
I put it back on the power monitor for 8 hours, and it still is averaging about 100 W even when ambient temperatures are around 50-60 F.
Is that monitored from the AC supply, or is it from the PoE?
The latest challenge to the mega-constellations was filed today with the Federal Communications Commission. A coalition of policy groups is calling on the FCC to put a 180-day hold on further approvals for broadband data satellite deployments, in order to conduct a more thoroughgoing assessment of the risks.
So far, the evidence suggests that FCC policy won’t change dramatically in the Biden administration. In an interview with Bloomberg TV, acting FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said broadband access will remain a priority.
“Broadband is no longer a ‘nice to have,'” she said. “It’s ‘need to have,’ for everyone, everywhere. This pandemic has demonstrated that with painful clarity.”
Rosenworcel said satellite internet could be a key enabler.
I put it back on the power monitor for 8 hours, and it still is averaging about 100 W even when ambient temperatures are around 50-60 F.
Is that monitored from the AC supply, or is it from the PoE?
That's AC input. I don't have a way to check power going out over the PoE...
Detroit area -
Just received invitation a few minutes ago and signed up immediately ($99 deposit). Received confirmation email - "Starlink will begin offering service in your area beginning mid to late 2021. Orders will be fulfilled on a first-come, first-served basis. You will be notified via email prior to shipment, and you will be charged the remainder of your balance once your kit ships."
I'm happy but very concerned about reports that the dishy requires 100W. If that's continuous 24/7/365 I'll be signing off quickly. Does anyone have any deeper info on power consumption?
That 100W sounds not much more than what my Dish/Router/Modem pulls right now for standard satellite, so it's competitive. I also think, but do not know for certain, that Starlink does not pull it's full wattage rating unless it is running its anti-ice heater.
But all in all, we're still talking to things in orbit here, so it's going to use some power.
My Starlink has averaged 98.4 watts over the last 11 days since I put it on the power monitor, with a peak draw of 185 W. It's been very cold, between -10 and 24 F, and snowy so I think the dish heater has been running most of that time.
I put it back on the power monitor for 8 hours, and it still is averaging about 100 W even when ambient temperatures are around 50-60 F.
SpaceX prepares for Air Force test connecting an aircraft to its Starlink satellite internet
PUBLISHED FRI, MAR 12 20213:17 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ
KEY POINTS
SpaceX is preparing to further test its Starlink satellite internet in a demonstration for the U.S. Air Force, the company revealed in a request to the Federal Communications Commission.
The company disclosed it is working with Ball Aerospace for this test, with the contractor providing antennas necessary to connect to “tactical aircraft.”
The Starlink test is under the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Defense Experimentation Using Commercial Space Internet (DEUCSI) program, for which Ball was awarded a contract in August.
Another piece of novel(?) info is that the antenna for the aircraft will be built by Ball, and not Starlink.
Another piece of novel(?) info is that the antenna for the aircraft will be built by Ball, and not Starlink.
Detroit area -
Just received invitation a few minutes ago and signed up immediately ($99 deposit). Received confirmation email - "Starlink will begin offering service in your area beginning mid to late 2021. Orders will be fulfilled on a first-come, first-served basis. You will be notified via email prior to shipment, and you will be charged the remainder of your balance once your kit ships."
I'm happy but very concerned about reports that the dishy requires 100W. If that's continuous 24/7/365 I'll be signing off quickly. Does anyone have any deeper info on power consumption?
That 100W sounds not much more than what my Dish/Router/Modem pulls right now for standard satellite, so it's competitive. I also think, but do not know for certain, that Starlink does not pull it's full wattage rating unless it is running its anti-ice heater.
But all in all, we're still talking to things in orbit here, so it's going to use some power.
My Starlink has averaged 98.4 watts over the last 11 days since I put it on the power monitor, with a peak draw of 185 W. It's been very cold, between -10 and 24 F, and snowy so I think the dish heater has been running most of that time.
I put it back on the power monitor for 8 hours, and it still is averaging about 100 W even when ambient temperatures are around 50-60 F.
If you are interested in further experimentation, does the power draw change substantially with the data rate? What I mean is does it measurably draw more power when you are say streaming as opposed to general surfing or when the system is mostly idle?
Interested in this also. I live on a boat and 100W is a little rich for my batteries. Could do it but it would make Starlink one of the highest (constant) consumption items.Detroit area -
Just received invitation a few minutes ago and signed up immediately ($99 deposit). Received confirmation email - "Starlink will begin offering service in your area beginning mid to late 2021. Orders will be fulfilled on a first-come, first-served basis. You will be notified via email prior to shipment, and you will be charged the remainder of your balance once your kit ships."
I'm happy but very concerned about reports that the dishy requires 100W. If that's continuous 24/7/365 I'll be signing off quickly. Does anyone have any deeper info on power consumption?
That 100W sounds not much more than what my Dish/Router/Modem pulls right now for standard satellite, so it's competitive. I also think, but do not know for certain, that Starlink does not pull it's full wattage rating unless it is running its anti-ice heater.
But all in all, we're still talking to things in orbit here, so it's going to use some power.
My Starlink has averaged 98.4 watts over the last 11 days since I put it on the power monitor, with a peak draw of 185 W. It's been very cold, between -10 and 24 F, and snowy so I think the dish heater has been running most of that time.
I put it back on the power monitor for 8 hours, and it still is averaging about 100 W even when ambient temperatures are around 50-60 F.
If you are interested in further experimentation, does the power draw change substantially with the data rate? What I mean is does it measurably draw more power when you are say streaming as opposed to general surfing or when the system is mostly idle?
The info on the aircraft test is old. The new filing just adds testing with a ground vehicle.The Key thing that the AF wanted to validate was the ability to do point to point in a global anywhere to anywhere just by hopping sat to sat without otherwise hitting the ground. With the at least 10 ISL birds up they can test this and gather real data to show if Starlink will do what they are looking for.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.msg2082506#msg2082506
The Key thing that the AF wanted to validate...
Interested in this also. I live on a boat and 100W is a little rich for my batteries. Could do it but it would make Starlink one of the highest (constant) consumption items.They'll probably be able to trim that a bit when they start making mobile units. A bit. Boats are tight. Any chance of finding a meter or two for PV? Wait a few years and sails and seat cushions will be PV.
Interested in this also. I live on a boat and 100W is a little rich for my batteries. Could do it but it would make Starlink one of the highest (constant) consumption items.They'll probably be able to trim that a bit when they start making mobile units. A bit. Boats are tight. Any chance of finding a meter or two for PV? Wait a few years and sails and seat cushions will be PV.
I hope they do because this is where Starlink with struggle on boats. Bigger than mine (50foot) and you're probably ok as power generation is easier but for small boats 100W is a big draw.I suspect that mobile terminals will have a low power mode.
I have 1400W sunpower solar, 9KW genset and pushing into 9.5 KWh Lithium batteries and feeding out 12/24/220 volt. My Iridium go draws 10W max (I know you can't compare the two) so Starlink might need to be relegated to off and on when needed.Interested in this also. I live on a boat and 100W is a little rich for my batteries. Could do it but it would make Starlink one of the highest (constant) consumption items.They'll probably be able to trim that a bit when they start making mobile units. A bit. Boats are tight. Any chance of finding a meter or two for PV? Wait a few years and sails and seat cushions will be PV.
Maybe SX could do an update, to make the current version slumber when you are not sending or receiving data. If it knows where the satellites are (going to be) ISTM it doesn't have to keep up a constant chat! However I have no idea if the POE power supply would pass back the power saving. My electronics understanding isn't good enough!I hope they do because this is where Starlink with struggle on boats. Bigger than mine (50foot) and you're probably ok as power generation is easier but for small boats 100W is a big draw.I suspect that mobile terminals will have a low power mode.
I have 1400W sunpower solar, 9KW genset and pushing into 9.5 KWh Lithium batteries and feeding out 12/24/220 volt. My Iridium go draws 10W max (I know you can't compare the two) so Starlink might need to be relegated to off and on when needed.Interested in this also. I live on a boat and 100W is a little rich for my batteries. Could do it but it would make Starlink one of the highest (constant) consumption items.They'll probably be able to trim that a bit when they start making mobile units. A bit. Boats are tight. Any chance of finding a meter or two for PV? Wait a few years and sails and seat cushions will be PV.
Have I just missed it, or has the FUD around malfunctioning Starlink sats all but vanished in recent months?
I hope they do because this is where Starlink with struggle on boats. Bigger than mine (50foot) and you're probably ok as power generation is easier but for small boats 100W is a big draw.I am surprised that with 1400W solar power you are concerned about 100W for Starlink. I was thinking of putting a 220W solar panel up and that would be enough to power the Starlink tranciever and my laptop. Am I being unreasonable? I don't have space for more solar power on 32ft sailboat.
I have 1400W sunpower solar, 9KW genset and pushing into 9.5 KWh Lithium batteries and feeding out 12/24/220 volt. My Iridium go draws 10W max (I know you can't compare the two) so Starlink might need to be relegated to off and on when needed.
Whats the rate.A brief look at the tracking thread and it looks more like one or two satellites lost per launch.
I think currently it is less than half of the launches of 60 might have one bad one.
So L20 might have one.
L21 might not have any.
Depends. Is that 220Wp, or actual 220W?I hope they do because this is where Starlink with struggle on boats. Bigger than mine (50foot) and you're probably ok as power generation is easier but for small boats 100W is a big draw.I am surprised that with 1400W solar power you are concerned about 100W for Starlink. I was thinking of putting a 220W solar panel up and that would be enough to power the Starlink tranciever and my laptop. Am I being unreasonable?
I have 1400W sunpower solar, 9KW genset and pushing into 9.5 KWh Lithium batteries and feeding out 12/24/220 volt. My Iridium go draws 10W max (I know you can't compare the two) so Starlink might need to be relegated to off and on when needed.
That's an average. Much less in winter or when overcast.Correct, the 135W is averaged over an entire year. Some days (winter, overcast) might not even see 135Wh per day
Mar 18, 2021
RELEASE 21-011
NASA, SpaceX Sign Joint Spaceflight Safety Agreement
NASA and SpaceX have signed a joint agreement to formalize both parties’ strong interest in the sharing of information to maintain and improve space safety. This agreement enables a deeper level of coordination, cooperation, and data sharing, and defines the arrangement, responsibilities, and procedures for flight safety coordination. The focus of the agreement is on conjunction avoidance and launch collision avoidance between NASA spacecraft and the large constellation of SpaceX Starlink satellites, as well as related rideshare missions. A conjunction is defined as a close approach between two objects in space, usually at very high speed.
“Society depends on space-based capabilities for global communications, navigation, weather forecasting, and much more,” said acting NASA Administrator Steve Jurczyk. “With commercial companies launching more and more satellites, it’s critical we increase communications, exchange data, and establish best practices to ensure we all maintain a safe space environment.”
The Starlink spacecraft are equipped with global navigation satellite service receivers to estimate orbital parameters, an ion propulsion system, and an autonomous maneuvering capability that provide data for prompt and proactive exchange of information. Both NASA and SpaceX benefit from this enhanced interaction by ensuring all parties involved are fully aware of the exact location of spacecraft and debris in orbit.
SpaceX has agreed its Starlink satellites will autonomously or manually maneuver to ensure the missions of NASA science satellites and other assets can operate uninterrupted from a collision avoidance perspective. Unless otherwise informed by SpaceX, NASA has agreed to not maneuver its assets in the event of a potential conjunction to ensure the parties do not inadvertently maneuver into one another.
NASA and the Department of Defense have decades of experience in proactively managing collision risks, as well as potential impacts. Effective mitigation relies on inter-operator coordination, accurate data, a sound technical basis for risk analysis, as well as proactive processes for appropriate actions to mitigate risks. By working together through this agreement, the approach to collision avoidance can be improved for all users.
In addition to this agreement, NASA is supporting growth in the U.S. commercial space sector through the release of the “Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Best Practices Handbook,” which the agency issued in December 2020 to improve global awareness of space activity and to share NASA lessons learned regarding close approach coordination and mitigation. The handbook is available at:
https://go.nasa.gov/34f9ijM
For more information about NASA’s programs and projects, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/
-end-
J.D. Harrington
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-5241
[email protected]
Last Updated: Mar 18, 2021
Editor: Sean Potter
I hope they do because this is where Starlink with struggle on boats. Bigger than mine (50foot) and you're probably ok as power generation is easier but for small boats 100W is a big draw.I am surprised that with 1400W solar power you are concerned about 100W for Starlink. I was thinking of putting a 220W solar panel up and that would be enough to power the Starlink tranciever and my laptop. Am I being unreasonable? I don't have space for more solar power on 32ft sailboat.
I have 1400W sunpower solar, 9KW genset and pushing into 9.5 KWh Lithium batteries and feeding out 12/24/220 volt. My Iridium go draws 10W max (I know you can't compare the two) so Starlink might need to be relegated to off and on when needed.
1200 satellites is pretty amazing. And it seems like it's happening really fast.
(What percentage of all satellites are Starlink now?)
1200 satellites is pretty amazing. And it seems like it's happening really fast.
(What percentage of all satellites are Starlink now?)
3372 satellites currently operational, per Union of Concerned Scientists Satellite Database. 1200 out of 3372 is about 36%, so more than a third!
Source: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database
1200 satellites is pretty amazing. And it seems like it's happening really fast.
(What percentage of all satellites are Starlink now?)
3372 satellites currently operational, per Union of Concerned Scientists Satellite Database. 1200 out of 3372 is about 36%, so more than a third!
Source: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database
Yeah, the POE supply isn't going to suck a ton of power if it's not being used by the Starlink terminal, so it'd work fine there.Maybe SX could do an update, to make the current version slumber when you are not sending or receiving data. If it knows where the satellites are (going to be) ISTM it doesn't have to keep up a constant chat! However I have no idea if the POE power supply would pass back the power saving. My electronics understanding isn't good enough!I hope they do because this is where Starlink with struggle on boats. Bigger than mine (50foot) and you're probably ok as power generation is easier but for small boats 100W is a big draw.I suspect that mobile terminals will have a low power mode.
I have 1400W sunpower solar, 9KW genset and pushing into 9.5 KWh Lithium batteries and feeding out 12/24/220 volt. My Iridium go draws 10W max (I know you can't compare the two) so Starlink might need to be relegated to off and on when needed.Interested in this also. I live on a boat and 100W is a little rich for my batteries. Could do it but it would make Starlink one of the highest (constant) consumption items.They'll probably be able to trim that a bit when they start making mobile units. A bit. Boats are tight. Any chance of finding a meter or two for PV? Wait a few years and sails and seat cushions will be PV.
718 of the currently operational Starlinks went up on B1049 and B1051 (which launched a total of 775 Starlinks).1200 satellites is pretty amazing. And it seems like it's happening really fast.
(What percentage of all satellites are Starlink now?)
3372 satellites currently operational, per Union of Concerned Scientists Satellite Database. 1200 out of 3372 is about 36%, so more than a third!
Source: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database
How many of those went up on B1049 and B1051?
Yeah, the POE supply isn't going to suck a ton of power if it's not being used by the Starlink terminal, so it'd work fine there.Maybe SX could do an update, to make the current version slumber when you are not sending or receiving data. If it knows where the satellites are (going to be) ISTM it doesn't have to keep up a constant chat! However I have no idea if the POE power supply would pass back the power saving. My electronics understanding isn't good enough!I hope they do because this is where Starlink with struggle on boats. Bigger than mine (50foot) and you're probably ok as power generation is easier but for small boats 100W is a big draw.I suspect that mobile terminals will have a low power mode.
I have 1400W sunpower solar, 9KW genset and pushing into 9.5 KWh Lithium batteries and feeding out 12/24/220 volt. My Iridium go draws 10W max (I know you can't compare the two) so Starlink might need to be relegated to off and on when needed.Interested in this also. I live on a boat and 100W is a little rich for my batteries. Could do it but it would make Starlink one of the highest (constant) consumption items.They'll probably be able to trim that a bit when they start making mobile units. A bit. Boats are tight. Any chance of finding a meter or two for PV? Wait a few years and sails and seat cushions will be PV.
I suspect variations in transmit power (and bitrate) are also possible. Just doesn't make sense for their main uses right now.
Yeah, the POE supply isn't going to suck a ton of power if it's not being used by the Starlink terminal, so it'd work fine there.Maybe SX could do an update, to make the current version slumber when you are not sending or receiving data. If it knows where the satellites are (going to be) ISTM it doesn't have to keep up a constant chat! However I have no idea if the POE power supply would pass back the power saving. My electronics understanding isn't good enough!I hope they do because this is where Starlink with struggle on boats. Bigger than mine (50foot) and you're probably ok as power generation is easier but for small boats 100W is a big draw.I suspect that mobile terminals will have a low power mode.
I have 1400W sunpower solar, 9KW genset and pushing into 9.5 KWh Lithium batteries and feeding out 12/24/220 volt. My Iridium go draws 10W max (I know you can't compare the two) so Starlink might need to be relegated to off and on when needed.Interested in this also. I live on a boat and 100W is a little rich for my batteries. Could do it but it would make Starlink one of the highest (constant) consumption items.They'll probably be able to trim that a bit when they start making mobile units. A bit. Boats are tight. Any chance of finding a meter or two for PV? Wait a few years and sails and seat cushions will be PV.
I suspect variations in transmit power (and bitrate) are also possible. Just doesn't make sense for their main uses right now.
Is the power consumption possibly higher due to constellation gaps forcing the beam to be steered off axis more? Shortest distance is to a sat directly in front of teh plate antenna, and as satellites go farther off boresight, you need to increase transmit power (and maybe calculation power to control the antenna elements?
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-spacex-sign-joint-spaceflight-safety-agreement (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-spacex-sign-joint-spaceflight-safety-agreement)Nice find. I'm sure NASA can get other American companies in board. Everybody with orbital capability needs to be on board. A mishmash of bilateral agreements could work out in the end but that process is low ISP. This is a perfect issue for the UN or other international venue, ala OST.QuoteMar 18, 2021
RELEASE 21-011
NASA, SpaceX Sign Joint Spaceflight Safety Agreement
NASA and SpaceX have signed a joint agreement to formalize both parties’ strong interest in the sharing of information to maintain and improve space safety. This agreement enables a deeper level of coordination, cooperation, and data sharing, and defines the arrangement, responsibilities, and procedures for flight safety coordination. The focus of the agreement is on conjunction avoidance and launch collision avoidance between NASA spacecraft and the large constellation of SpaceX Starlink satellites, as well as related rideshare missions. A conjunction is defined as a close approach between two objects in space, usually at very high speed.
“Society depends on space-based capabilities for global communications, navigation, weather forecasting, and much more,” said acting NASA Administrator Steve Jurczyk. “With commercial companies launching more and more satellites, it’s critical we increase communications, exchange data, and establish best practices to ensure we all maintain a safe space environment.”
The Starlink spacecraft are equipped with global navigation satellite service receivers to estimate orbital parameters, an ion propulsion system, and an autonomous maneuvering capability that provide data for prompt and proactive exchange of information. Both NASA and SpaceX benefit from this enhanced interaction by ensuring all parties involved are fully aware of the exact location of spacecraft and debris in orbit.
SpaceX has agreed its Starlink satellites will autonomously or manually maneuver to ensure the missions of NASA science satellites and other assets can operate uninterrupted from a collision avoidance perspective. Unless otherwise informed by SpaceX, NASA has agreed to not maneuver its assets in the event of a potential conjunction to ensure the parties do not inadvertently maneuver into one another.
NASA and the Department of Defense have decades of experience in proactively managing collision risks, as well as potential impacts. Effective mitigation relies on inter-operator coordination, accurate data, a sound technical basis for risk analysis, as well as proactive processes for appropriate actions to mitigate risks. By working together through this agreement, the approach to collision avoidance can be improved for all users.
In addition to this agreement, NASA is supporting growth in the U.S. commercial space sector through the release of the “Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Best Practices Handbook,” which the agency issued in December 2020 to improve global awareness of space activity and to share NASA lessons learned regarding close approach coordination and mitigation. The handbook is available at:
https://go.nasa.gov/34f9ijM (https://go.nasa.gov/34f9ijM)
For more information about NASA’s programs and projects, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/ (http://www.nasa.gov/)
-end-
J.D. Harrington
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-5241
[email protected]
Last Updated: Mar 18, 2021
Editor: Sean Potter
edit/gongora: The agreement: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa-spacex_starlink_agreement_final.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa-spacex_starlink_agreement_final.pdf)
Cybersecurity specialist Luke McOmie lives entirely off-grid on the side of a mountain in Colorado, where there’s no cell service or landline broadband internet. Yet he recently gave a talk at a convention hosted in Japan on the lethality of drones. He was live via satellite—his own personal satellite internet connection, that is.
With a constellation of hundreds of satellites, and speeds comparable to U.S. broadband, the Starlink service lets Mr. McOmie do his job despite being in the middle of nowhere. He and his wife Melanie McOmie are living the sort of lifestyle that pandemic-weary, deskbound urbanites might envy: raising chickens, watching out for mountain lions, and taking in an expanse of unsullied forest.
SpaceX reiterated its commitment to safe space for all operators and noted some of the
measures it has taken to reduce the probability of collision ("Pc") with trackable objects . For
example, NASA has discussed the industry standard for maneuverable satellites to act to mitigate
a collision risk.QuoteGenerally, when the Pc is greater than 1E-04 (1 in 10,000 likelihood of a
penetration), a mitigation action is recommended and executed; this threshold has
emerged in the industry as an acceptable balance between safety-of-flight
considerations and additional mission burden and encumbrance. Because
mitigation actions are recommended when the likelihood of penetration exceeds 1
in 10,000, there is little surprise that the frequency of CA serious events exceeds
that projected by the debris flux value: in only 1 out of 10,000 cases would the
penetration actually take place if the mitigation action were not executed.
Fortunately, a conservative approach such as this can be implemented and is still
consistent with the mandates of prudent action, reasonable costs, and lack of undue
burden on mission operations. 1
SpaceX has chosen to go above and beyond the industry standard by initiating mitigating actions
when Pc is greater than 1E-05 (i.e., 1 in 100,000) to reduce the risk to lE-06 (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000)
or less. Even this metric overstates the potential for collision for several reasons. For example,
most post maneuver risk values end up even lower than the 1E-06 target, often significantly
so. SpaceX also currently uses a 10-meter hard body radius for its satellites, which is much larger
than the actual area of the satellite and therefore results in more projected collisions. Moreover,
Starlink provides propagated ephemeris three times per day to the 18th Space Control Squadron
for screening, while many operators only do this once per day. Moreover, SpaceX performs its
own Starlink vs Starlink conjunction screening analysis every hour. Accordingly, SpaceX has
taken significant steps to reduce even the residual risk inherent in space operations to a level well
below that NASA recommends as the industry standard.
SpaceX discussed its projected launch cadence for Starlink satellites, noting the high
success rate those satellites have enjoyed. At this point, Starlink’s overall success rate is
approaching 99% (not counting its initial tranche of satellites that have fully demised or are in the
process of de-orbiting) and continuing steadily to improve.
So if correct that means that using Starlink on a moving platform will always use more power as it continues to search and realign.I have found that if I move my antenna even slightly with a little rotation (5°) it cuts out and takes 4 minutes to 30 minutes to re-connect. No good for mobile.
How long does a cold start take?So if correct that means that using Starlink on a moving platform will always use more power as it continues to search and realign.I have found that if I move my antenna even slightly with a little rotation (5°) it cuts out and takes 4 minutes to 30 minutes to re-connect. No good for mobile.
Musk said Starlink’s newest 60 satellites carry phased array antennas and ion propulsion units that run on krypton instead of the typical xenon gas. SpaceX chose krypton because it is less expensive than xenon, Musk said.https://spacenews.com/musk-says-starlink-economically-viable-with-around-1000-satellites/
When did you get the unit?How long does a cold start take?So if correct that means that using Starlink on a moving platform will always use more power as it continues to search and realign.I have found that if I move my antenna even slightly with a little rotation (5°) it cuts out and takes 4 minutes to 30 minutes to re-connect. No good for mobile.
yes.QuoteMusk said Starlink’s newest 60 satellites carry phased array antennas and ion propulsion units that run on krypton instead of the typical xenon gas. SpaceX chose krypton because it is less expensive than xenon, Musk said.https://spacenews.com/musk-says-starlink-economically-viable-with-around-1000-satellites/
yes.QuoteMusk said Starlink’s newest 60 satellites carry phased array antennas and ion propulsion units that run on krypton instead of the typical xenon gas. SpaceX chose krypton because it is less expensive than xenon, Musk said.https://spacenews.com/musk-says-starlink-economically-viable-with-around-1000-satellites/
Cool, thanks!
Had that (krypton as propellant) been done before?
Are you sure on that? Couple articles saying that 20 million liters a year currently produced.
Are you sure on that? Couple articles saying that 20 million liters a year currently produced.Now figure 8,000 satellites replaced every year at 3kg per sat.
Yeah, a couple orders of magnitude better than Xenon. If they run into constraints there, they can always go to Argon. Which is effectively unlimited as they'll probably produce plenty as a byproduct of nitrogen and oxygen.Are you sure on that? Couple articles saying that 20 million liters a year currently produced.Now figure 8,000 satellites replaced every year at 3kg per sat.
Are you sure on that? Couple articles saying that 20 million liters a year currently produced.Now figure 8,000 satellites replaced every year at 3kg per sat.
Yeah, a couple orders of magnitude better than Xenon. If they run into constraints there, they can always go to Argon. Which is effectively unlimited as they'll probably produce plenty as a byproduct of nitrogen and oxygen.Are you sure on that? Couple articles saying that 20 million liters a year currently produced.Now figure 8,000 satellites replaced every year at 3kg per sat.
When did you get the unit?How long does a cold start take?So if correct that means that using Starlink on a moving platform will always use more power as it continues to search and realign.I have found that if I move my antenna even slightly with a little rotation (5°) it cuts out and takes 4 minutes to 30 minutes to re-connect. No good for mobile.
They may have an update for the UTs for use on moving platforms that regularly change the antenna attitude. Which may be similar to that of a cell phone rudimentary IMU sensor set so that changes in attitude can be rapidly compensated for without a reset calibration.
NOTE: RF beam width angle from that size array is ~+-5 degrees.
I am interested in the mobile version if they get it, to use on an RV. Seems to be if it has to be completely level, they might be able to mount the antenna on some type of gimbal system to keep it level while driving. However, we don't really use a TV while driving only after stopping at a campsite. Now, we do use the internet to keep up with our stock accounts. My wife manages our retirement money so she needs access. So far we have been using our cell phones and tablets. Sometimes we can't get service.
A mobile antenna won't have to be stationary to work. SpaceX has been testing airborne antennas provided by Ball Aerospace although I have no doubt they are working on their own design as well. Also as noted in this link, testing on vehicles.As noted above the difference is possibly just mostly faster processors/ASICs a cheap IMU (something very like what is in most smartphones (cost of just a couple of dollars each at most). A GPS receiver compatible with operating next to an active RF source. This one is probably more expensive. It allows for a much quicker discovery of where the UT is on the surface of the world without going through a search for and analyze the angles to sats and their orbital positions (basically the same thing that a GPS receiver does but takes more time). With the IMU and GPS receiver added the connect establishment may be shortened to about a second vs several minutes. So even if connection is lost reestablishment may return very rapidly once whatever caused the connection interruption is gone. As in overhead obstructions during the unit's movement, like bridges or trees. With These hardware additions and upgrades is more agile software that can quickly adjust the phase angle tracking predictions such that a pointing accuracy of the formed beam maintains about a +-2 degree pointing angle accuracy and worst case better than the margins of +-5 degrees. If the movement is so fost and attitude changing the even a +-5 degree pointing track can be maintained like on a vessel in very rough seas or a vehicle on very rough terrain. Then holding connection may have dropouts of occasional several seconds in duration or if it os so rough a connection may not be able to be made. The more robust/faster/accurate the sensor data and the faster the processors/ASICs the rougher the movement that can be handled. Basicly a divide between consumer, business, and military UT hardware. With each step up in the environment it can handle being more expensive.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/12/spacex-prepares-for-air-force-test-of-starlink-satellite-internet.html
Starlink antennas already have GPS. See image 4/7 under "PCB and antenna array" at https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/12/teardown-of-dishy-mcflatface-the-spacex-starlink-user-terminal/A mobile antenna won't have to be stationary to work. SpaceX has been testing airborne antennas provided by Ball Aerospace although I have no doubt they are working on their own design as well. Also as noted in this link, testing on vehicles.As noted above the difference is possibly just mostly faster processors/ASICs a cheap IMU (something very like what is in most smartphones (cost of just a couple of dollars each at most). A GPS receiver compatible with operating next to an active RF source. This one is probably more expensive. It allows for a much quicker discovery of where the UT is on the surface of the world without going through a search for and analyze the angles to sats and their orbital positions (basically the same thing that a GPS receiver does but takes more time). With the IMU and GPS receiver added the connect establishment may be shortened to about a second vs several minutes. So even if connection is lost reestablishment may return very rapidly once whatever caused the connection interruption is gone. As in overhead obstructions during the unit's movement, like bridges or trees. With These hardware additions and upgrades is more agile software that can quickly adjust the phase angle tracking predictions such that a pointing accuracy of the formed beam maintains about a +-2 degree pointing angle accuracy and worst case better than the margins of +-5 degrees. If the movement is so fost and attitude changing the even a +-5 degree pointing track can be maintained like on a vessel in very rough seas or a vehicle on very rough terrain. Then holding connection may have dropouts of occasional several seconds in duration or if it os so rough a connection may not be able to be made. The more robust/faster/accurate the sensor data and the faster the processors/ASICs the rougher the movement that can be handled. Basicly a divide between consumer, business, and military UT hardware. With each step up in the environment it can handle being more expensive.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/12/spacex-prepares-for-air-force-test-of-starlink-satellite-internet.html
Starlink antennas already have GPS. See image 4/7 under "PCB and antenna array" at https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/12/teardown-of-dishy-mcflatface-the-spacex-starlink-user-terminal/Great then all it needs is enough IMU capability (accelerometers and at lest 1 tuning fork gyro to measure rotation to be able to compensate for attitude changes second to second.
Great then all it needs is enough IMU capability (accelerometers and at lest 1 tuning fork gyro to measure rotation to be able to compensate for attitude changes second to second.It is not necessary . The phased array antenna is aimed at the satellite in less than 10 microseconds. Shaking the car is not terrible for her
Sorry if this has been discussed earlier - I haven't read all 141 pages - and the answer may not be publicly known since SpaceX isn't publicly traded: but do we know how many satellites Starlink needs to become profitable? Will the initial 1400 or 1500 or whatever (which, barring a surprise, should be in orbit by this summer) be sufficient?
Sorry if this has been discussed earlier - I haven't read all 141 pages - and the answer may not be publicly known since SpaceX isn't publicly traded: but do we know how many satellites Starlink needs to become profitable? Will the initial 1400 or 1500 or whatever (which, barring a surprise, should be in orbit by this summer) be sufficient?
The key item is at what number of subscribers will the current expenditure rates equal the revenue. My modeling shows ~1.3 million subscribers. NOTE the yearly revenue from 1.3 million subscribers is ~$1.5B.Sorry if this has been discussed earlier - I haven't read all 141 pages - and the answer may not be publicly known since SpaceX isn't publicly traded: but do we know how many satellites Starlink needs to become profitable? Will the initial 1400 or 1500 or whatever (which, barring a surprise, should be in orbit by this summer) be sufficient?
Wrong question. "Profit" comes from subscribers not satellites but more particularly the ratio of subscription fees to all-in satellite costs.
But "Profit" really isn't the useful metric for a long time. Cash flow is King. SpaceX needs to be generating cash flow which can be kind of thought of as "recycling" the capital expended in previous fundraising rounds. In other words, they get some revenue which doesn't exceed overall amortized expenses so there's no profit but the money can be used for more capital investment without having to go raise funds.
Yes, I asked the wrong question.
I suppose what I should have asked is - there are several "phases" of Starlink described; at what point is it expected to be a "complete system" able to provide services comparable to other internet providers available in rural areas?
In much of the rural (and even suburban) US they have nothing to compete with...or at most maybe dialup, ~1-6 Mbps DSL, cellular, or (heaven forbid) - Hughes. Day one, StarLink to those locales and their businesses will be a godsend.
Makes sense. So will the "initial" 1500 (or whatever) satellites be enough to offer 'full' service (ie, always enough satellites overhead) in those areas?
1584 should cover the lower latitudes, but without much redundancy. The real system, pole to pole, with multiple sats available at all times so blockages don't mess you up will be the 4400 sat system with it's higher inclinations. Military and airlines will both be interested in that.In much of the rural (and even suburban) US they have nothing to compete with...or at most maybe dialup, ~1-6 Mbps DSL, cellular, or (heaven forbid) - Hughes. Day one, StarLink to those locales and their businesses will be a godsend.
Makes sense. So will the "initial" 1500 (or whatever) satellites be enough to offer 'full' service (ie, always enough satellites overhead) in those areas?
I guess what I am really asking is the timeline/number of satellites needed for "operational" (even though later phases will increase capability further) vs "beta test".
Yes.1440 should cover the lower latitudes, but without much redundancy. The real system, pole to pole, with multiple sats available at all times so blockages don't mess you up will be the 4400 sat system with it's higher inclinations. Military and airlines will both be interested in that.In much of the rural (and even suburban) US they have nothing to compete with...or at most maybe dialup, ~1-6 Mbps DSL, cellular, or (heaven forbid) - Hughes. Day one, StarLink to those locales and their businesses will be a godsend.
Makes sense. So will the "initial" 1500 (or whatever) satellites be enough to offer 'full' service (ie, always enough satellites overhead) in those areas?
I guess what I am really asking is the timeline/number of satellites needed for "operational" (even though later phases will increase capability further) vs "beta test".
What we are talking about here is a laser satcom capability, which is not only extremely secure and jam-resistant, but it's also very fast. Laser satcom terminals have come a long way over the years—for instance, Elon Musk's Starlink constellation of satellites is set to communicate with each other based on a laser mesh-like network concept. Due to the heights involved with a HALE drone like this, it would be flying above any weather that could degrade its capabilities. In fact, pairing the RQ-180 with a high-bandwidth constellation like Musk's Starlink, at least partially, for distributing data from across the globe, would provide incredibly resilient satcom capabilities even during a peer state conflict in which more traditional unitary communications satellites will be far more vulnerable to a wide array of enemy attacks. The Air Force is already leveraging Starlink for its future combat networking needs and is working on building out similar mesh-like satellite networks, including those for more focused strategic tasks.
I live in a building with a view of 180 degree, ie if I installed an antenna on my balcony, it could “see” 50% of the sky, except for some clutter on the horizon. If the antenna were pointed straight up, it would be blocked on one side by my building.I'm trying to picture how much the direction of your 180 would matter, but in any case, I doubt if you'll be too happy until the initial 1584 are all on station. You never point below 25 degrees, so horizon clutter doesn't hurt.
Will that be sufficient for reception?
Interesting to read how Starlink could interlink with a platform like the RQ-180 using laser communication.Yeah, the laser link portion is interesting. SpaceX (or their partners) figuring out how to make cheap and very good laser links has lots of interesting applications for in-space and high altitude aircraft communications. Especially if you’re one of those people who think RF bandwidth is severely limited and don’t buy into the spatial multiplexing argument. Laser bandwidth is not going to run out any time soon.QuoteWhat we are talking about here is a laser satcom capability, which is not only extremely secure and jam-resistant, but it's also very fast. Laser satcom terminals have come a long way over the years—for instance, Elon Musk's Starlink constellation of satellites is set to communicate with each other based on a laser mesh-like network concept. Due to the heights involved with a HALE drone like this, it would be flying above any weather that could degrade its capabilities. In fact, pairing the RQ-180 with a high-bandwidth constellation like Musk's Starlink, at least partially, for distributing data from across the globe, would provide incredibly resilient satcom capabilities even during a peer state conflict in which more traditional unitary communications satellites will be far more vulnerable to a wide array of enemy attacks. The Air Force is already leveraging Starlink for its future combat networking needs and is working on building out similar mesh-like satellite networks, including those for more focused strategic tasks.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39882/how-the-rq-180-drone-will-emerge-from-the-shadows-as-the-centerpiece-of-a-warfighting-revolution
I wonder if the USAF has trialed laser communications with a high flying platform like the U-2.Interesting to read how Starlink could interlink with a platform like the RQ-180 using laser communication.Yeah, the laser link portion is interesting. SpaceX (or their partners) figuring out how to make cheap and very good laser links has lots of interesting applications for in-space and high altitude aircraft communications. Especially if you’re one of those people who think RF bandwidth is severely limited and don’t buy into the spatial multiplexing argument. Laser bandwidth is not going to run out any time soon.QuoteWhat we are talking about here is a laser satcom capability, which is not only extremely secure and jam-resistant, but it's also very fast. Laser satcom terminals have come a long way over the years—for instance, Elon Musk's Starlink constellation of satellites is set to communicate with each other based on a laser mesh-like network concept. Due to the heights involved with a HALE drone like this, it would be flying above any weather that could degrade its capabilities. In fact, pairing the RQ-180 with a high-bandwidth constellation like Musk's Starlink, at least partially, for distributing data from across the globe, would provide incredibly resilient satcom capabilities even during a peer state conflict in which more traditional unitary communications satellites will be far more vulnerable to a wide array of enemy attacks. The Air Force is already leveraging Starlink for its future combat networking needs and is working on building out similar mesh-like satellite networks, including those for more focused strategic tasks.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39882/how-the-rq-180-drone-will-emerge-from-the-shadows-as-the-centerpiece-of-a-warfighting-revolution
The key item is at what number of subscribers will the current expenditure rates equal the revenue. My modeling shows ~1.3 million subscribers. NOTE the yearly revenue from 1.3 million subscribers is ~$1.5B.
The expenditures include the launch and manufacturing of 24 sets of 60 sats per year. The installation of 125 new Gateways per year. The Internet data connection charges for the Gateways in use (NOTE as the total number of Gateways go up so does this expenditure). The Customer support costs (also note is that as subscribers increases so does this expenditure).
I live in a building with a view of 180 degree, ie if I installed an antenna on my balcony, it could “see” 50% of the sky, except for some clutter on the horizon. If the antenna were pointed straight up, it would be blocked on one side by my building.
Will that be sufficient for reception?
It's almost always better to have a view towards the closest geographical pole. The latitude where it would flip is the same as the inclination of the satellites. East vs West doesn't matter.I live in a building with a view of 180 degree, ie if I installed an antenna on my balcony, it could “see” 50% of the sky, except for some clutter on the horizon. If the antenna were pointed straight up, it would be blocked on one side by my building.I'm trying to picture how much the direction of your 180 would matter, but in any case, I doubt if you'll be too happy until the initial 1440 are all on station. You never point below 25 degrees, so horizon clutter doesn't hurt.
Will that be sufficient for reception?
I never have gotten a firm idea on antenna pointing being smart enough to take blockages into account. Mapping the sky by plotting blockages has been done for years on shipboard geo dishes, and that's a lot harder on a moving ship.
Interesting to read how Starlink could interlink with a platform like the RQ-180 using laser communication.Yeah, the laser link portion is interesting. SpaceX (or their partners) figuring out how to make cheap and very good laser links has lots of interesting applications for in-space and high altitude aircraft communications. Especially if you’re one of those people who think RF bandwidth is severely limited and don’t buy into the spatial multiplexing argument. Laser bandwidth is not going to run out any time soon.QuoteWhat we are talking about here is a laser satcom capability, which is not only extremely secure and jam-resistant, but it's also very fast. Laser satcom terminals have come a long way over the years—for instance, Elon Musk's Starlink constellation of satellites is set to communicate with each other based on a laser mesh-like network concept. Due to the heights involved with a HALE drone like this, it would be flying above any weather that could degrade its capabilities. In fact, pairing the RQ-180 with a high-bandwidth constellation like Musk's Starlink, at least partially, for distributing data from across the globe, would provide incredibly resilient satcom capabilities even during a peer state conflict in which more traditional unitary communications satellites will be far more vulnerable to a wide array of enemy attacks. The Air Force is already leveraging Starlink for its future combat networking needs and is working on building out similar mesh-like satellite networks, including those for more focused strategic tasks.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39882/how-the-rq-180-drone-will-emerge-from-the-shadows-as-the-centerpiece-of-a-warfighting-revolution
In another LEO Digital Forum panel, SpaceX’s Gwynne Shotwell says the company plans to start polar launches of Starlink satellites this summer. Hopes to have full global connectivity after 28 launches; after that additional satellites will add capacity.
SpaceX president Shotwell says the company has roughly 1,320 of its version 1.0 Starlink satellites in orbit right now.
We hope to have “full connectivity globally” after about 28 launches.
The v1.0 satellites don't have "laser links" (also known as intersatellite links), but still planning to create a "mesh network" over the longer term.
SpaceX president Shotwell, on concerns around Starlink adding to the space debris problem:
"LEO is an incredibly important environment ... we have no intention of causing an issue in LEO that would prevent us from launching our other customers, launching crew" to the ISS.
Shotwell says SpaceX is "concerned about the number of satellites that are at very high altitude. In fact, we're bringing our satellites down from our original altitude because the debris" stay in orbit longer.
Gwynne Shotwell says SpaceX doesn't have a timeframe "for getting out of the beta phase" for Starlink.
"We still have a lot of work to do to make the network reliable ... we'll move off of beta when we have a really great product."
On Starlink pricing, @Gwynne_Shotwell says she doesn't think SpaceX will do "tiered pricing to consumers."
"We're going to try to keep it as simple as possible and transparent as possible, so right now there are no plans to tier for consumers."
Shotwell says SpaceX has "made great progress on reducing the cost" of the Starlink user terminal.
Starlink terminals cost less than $1,500 each, she says, and SpaceX "just rolled out a new version that saved about $200 off the cost."
Shotwell: "We are not charging our customers what it costs us to build those terminals right now. But we do see our terminals coming in the few hundred dollar range within the next year or two."
Note: SpaceX has been charging $499 upfront for the Starlink kit during the public beta, which means the company is eating two thirds of the cost for now.
In another LEO Digital Forum panel, SpaceX’s Gwynne Shotwell says the company plans to start polar launches of Starlink satellites this summer. Hopes to have full global connectivity after 28 launches; after that additional satellites will add capacity.
Shotwell says SpaceX concerned about space sustainability. Worries about sats without propulsion: “When you’re flying a brick, that’s troublesome.”
Viasat’s Mark Dankberg: a satellite that has propulsion and fails is the same as one without propulsion.
GEO satellite executives expressing their skepticism about LEO constellations. Eutelsat’s Rodolphe Belmer says his company sees “no possibility” LEO constellations can meet all demand from unserved populations.
Shotwell’s response: “I always smile when people make projections on what can and cannot be done with technology.” She predicts that Starlink can serve every rural household in the US in 3-5 years.
Shotwell: no timeframe for ending the Starlink beta test. Still have a lot of work to make the network reliable.
Shotwell: Starlink terminal cost now less that half original $3,000. Expect to get that down to a few hundred dollars in a couple years.
Panel ends without addressing a near-term issue for Starlink: it’s fast approaching its current FCC authorization of ~1,600 satellites at 550 km. What happens if the FCC doesn’t soon approve SpaceX’s requested modification to allow more satellites at 550 km?
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell is speaking on a panel at the @SATELLITEDC LEO Digital forum, alongside SES CEO Steve Collar, Viasat $VSAT CEO Mark Dankberg, Hughes President Pradman Kaul, and Eutelsat CEO Rodolphe Belmer.
SpaceX president Shotwell says the company has roughly 1,320 of its version 1.0 Starlink satellites in orbit right now.
We hope to have “full connectivity globally” after about 28 launches.
The v1.0 satellites don't have "laser links" (also known as intersatellite links), but still planning to create a "mesh network" over the longer term.
SpaceX president Shotwell, on concerns around Starlink adding to the space debris problem:
"LEO is an incredibly important environment ... we have no intention of causing an issue in LEO that would prevent us from launching our other customers, launching crew" to the ISS.
Shotwell says SpaceX is "concerned about the number of satellites that are at very high altitude. In fact, we're bringing our satellites down from our original altitude because the debris" stay in orbit longer.
Gwynne Shotwell says SpaceX doesn't have a timeframe "for getting out of the beta phase" for Starlink.
"We still have a lot of work to do to make the network reliable ... we'll move off of beta when we have a really great product."
On Starlink pricing,
@Gwynne_Shotwell
says she doesn't think SpaceX will do "tiered pricing to consumers."
"We're going to try to keep it as simple as possible and transparent as possible, so right now there are no plans to tier for consumers."
SpaceX’s
@Gwynne_Shotwell
says she both agrees and disagrees with Eutelsat and SES in the capabilities of LEO broadband constellations.
"I always smile, by the way, when people make projections about what can and can't be done with technology."
Shotwell says that, "five years from now," Starlink "will be able to serve every rural household in the United States."
Shotwell: "We're doing those analyses for other countries as well. Our focus initially is the U.S., because they speak English and they're close and, if they have a problem with their dish, we can get one shipped out quickly."
Shotwell says SpaceX has "made great progress on reducing the cost" of the Starlink user terminal.
Starlink terminals cost less than $1,500 each, she says, and SpaceX "just rolled out a new version that saved about $200 off the cost."
Shotwell: "We are not charging our customers what it costs us to build those terminals right now. But we do see our terminals coming in the few hundred dollar range within the next year or two."
Note: SpaceX has been charging $499 upfront for the Starlink kit during the public beta, which means the company is eating two thirds of the cost for now.
Shotwell emphasizes that SpaceX's Starlink is "very complementary" to "the giant providers: AT&T and Comcast, etc., given the service's focus on rural populations.
Shotwell adds that "we were noobs to this business just a few years ago" and "thought we'd struggle a little bit more" designing and building Starlink satellites.
SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft "helped us tremendously in figuring out the satellite architecture for Starlink, but certainly reaching out to consumers – that's a scale that we have not had to do ... scaling to consumer customers is definitely a challenge."
Throughout the beta program, customer feedback has helped drive some of our most important changes to date as we continue to test and scale the network.
The Starlink team has implemented a number of improvements since our last update. Below are some of the key highlights:
Starlink Expansion
Since rollout of initial U.S. service in October 2020, Starlink now offers limited beta service in Canada, U.K., Germany and New Zealand. To date, we have deposits from almost every country around the world; going forward, our ability to expand service will be driven in large part by governments granting us licensing internationally.
Preventative Maintenance
Recently some beta users saw short but more frequent outages, particularly in the evening hours. This was caused by two main issues— preventive maintenance on various ground gateways, coupled with a network logic bug that intermittently caused some packet processing services to hang until they were reset. The good news is fixes were implemented and users should no longer see this particular issue.
Gateway Availability
As more users come online, the team is seeing an increase in surges of activity, particularly during peak hours. The gateway infrastructure to support these types of surges is in place, but we are awaiting final regulatory approval to use all available channels. Near term fixes have been implemented to facilitate better load balancing in the interim, and this issue will fully resolve once all approvals are received.
Dynamic Frame Allocation
The Starlink software team recently rolled out our dynamic frame allocation feature which dynamically allocates additional bandwidth to beta users based on real time usage. This feature enables the network to better balance load and deliver higher speeds to the user.
Connecting to the Best Satellite
Today, your Starlink speaks to a single satellite assigned to your terminal for a particular period of time. In the future, if communication with your assigned satellite is interrupted for any reason, your Starlink will seamlessly switch to a different satellite, resulting in far fewer network disruptions. There can only be one satellite connected to your Starlink at any time, but this feature will allow for choice of the best satellite. This feature will be available to most beta users in April and is expected to deliver one of our most notable reliability improvements to date.
These upgrades are part of our overall effort to build a network that not only reaches underserved users, but also performs significantly better than traditional satellite internet.
To that end, the Starlink team is always looking for great software, integration and network engineers. If you want to help us build the internet in space, please send your resume to [email protected].
Thank you for your feedback and continued support!
The Starlink Team
SpaceX leases new 125,000-square-foot complex in Seattle area as Starlink satellite operation grows
BY ALAN BOYLE on April 7, 2021 at 12:17 pm
SpaceX is leasing a 124,907-square-foot building complex that’s under construction in Redmond Ridge Business Park, east of Seattle, according to the latest industrial real estate market report from Kidder Mathews.
Kidder Mathews, which listed the property for lease, says construction is slated for completion this fall.
An artist’s conception shows one of the buildings currently under construction at Redmond Ridge Business Park. (Illustration via Kidder Mathews)
IFAIK they are running 18 / plane right now, plus 2 on plane spares. it's not that hard to move birds from one plane to another by delaying their climb to altitude and allowing the orbit to precess.
A interesting item. Supposedly SpaceX mentioned launches from VAFB for Starlink this summer. As to how many sats per launch? As to RTLS vs landing on an ASDS which at the moment there are only 2? As to these sats having ISL the statement indicate that they will have ISL. There are questions as to how valid is some of this article? https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/04/06/spacex-to-ramp-up-vandenberg-launch-cadence-with-starlink-missions/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/04/06/spacex-to-ramp-up-vandenberg-launch-cadence-with-starlink-missions/)
Lots of questions.
Assuming there is truth in the article. Stephan Clark is usually very accurate.
With a booster at McGregor (1067?) being tested right now. It could ship to VAFB for use for support of a July launch. (Meanwhile the 1063 booster which just recently got shipped to the cape may have already flown twice by then which supports why it was shipped to the cape.) But what about ASDS vs RTLS? what is the difference in numbers of sats into a SSO orbit from VAFB between ASDS and RTLS? What is the total sats for each? A set of numbers for max payload weight for launches from VAFB for ASDS and RTLS may be helpful if they are known to someone out there or were they can be found. Then the approximate number of sats can be derived for the 2 options. The goal for SpaceX in the new FCC licencing MOD request is for 58/43 sats per plane and total of 10 planes 6/4 for a total of 520 sats (see the post above). At a reduced amount of sats per launch to as low as 30 (payload to LEO ~ 10,000kg) would take 18 launches and at 40 (payload to LEO ~12,000kg) per launch would take 13 launches.
Do we have any payload mass values approaching either of these 2 values for SSO VAFB RTLS launches using a BLK 5 booster?
A interesting item. Supposedly SpaceX mentioned launches from VAFB for Starlink this summer. As to how many sats per launch? As to RTLS vs landing on an ASDS which at the moment there are only 2? As to these sats having ISL the statement indicate that they will have ISL. There are questions as to how valid is some of this article? https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/04/06/spacex-to-ramp-up-vandenberg-launch-cadence-with-starlink-missions/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/04/06/spacex-to-ramp-up-vandenberg-launch-cadence-with-starlink-missions/)
Lots of questions.
Assuming there is truth in the article. Stephan Clark is usually very accurate.
With a booster at McGregor (1067?) being tested right now. It could ship to VAFB for use for support of a July launch. (Meanwhile the 1063 booster which just recently got shipped to the cape may have already flown twice by then which supports why it was shipped to the cape.) But what about ASDS vs RTLS? what is the difference in numbers of sats into a SSO orbit from VAFB between ASDS and RTLS? What is the total sats for each? A set of numbers for max payload weight for launches from VAFB for ASDS and RTLS may be helpful if they are known to someone out there or were they can be found. Then the approximate number of sats can be derived for the 2 options. The goal for SpaceX in the new FCC licencing MOD request is for 58/43 sats per plane and total of 10 planes 6/4 for a total of 520 sats (see the post above). At a reduced amount of sats per launch to as low as 30 (payload to LEO ~ 10,000kg) would take 18 launches and at 40 (payload to LEO ~12,000kg) per launch would take 13 launches.
Do we have any payload mass values approaching either of these 2 values for SSO VAFB RTLS launches using a BLK 5 booster?
With ASOG maybe finally arriving, might they debut it on the west coast?
Time isn't always a good reason to max out launches if it takes an extra two months to get the sats on station in the right plane. Between less drifting and a week less processing time, fewer sats with RTLS might make a lot of sense. They won't always be populating empty planes.
In a world where time is money, the 60 per launch makes the most sense. ASOG would go a long way to making that happen.
But there is something I really like about the idea of reducing payload and doing RTLS. So slick, fast and efficient. With a little time, I bet they could break 14 days on a booster turnaround with RTLS.
Do we know if the inter links are only planned to be to other satelites in the same plane, Or across planes? As same plane seems much easier to track between satellites.
<snip>
With ASOG maybe finally arriving, might they debut it on the west coast?
OneWeb, SpaceX satellites dodged a potential collision in orbit
‘Red alerts’ of a potential disaster were sent to the companies
By Joey Roulette on April 9, 2021 2:12 pm
Two satellites from the fast-growing constellations of OneWeb and SpaceX’s Starlink dodged a dangerously close approach with one another in orbit last weekend, representatives from the US Space Force and OneWeb said. It’s the first known collision avoidance event for the two rival companies as they race to expand their new broadband-beaming networks in space.
[...]
One Space Force alert indicated a collision probability of 1.3 percent, with the two satellites coming as close as 190 feet
I am seeing some ill-informed takes on today's near-miss in orbit so would like to offer some trajectory corrections if I may. Firstly, the chance that a single collision would trigger a catastrophic 'chain reaction' that would sweep through LEO is tiny.
For every close pass involving catalogued objects in orbit we can estimate a collision probability, or Pc. The Pc is between 0 and 1. If it is 1 we can say that a collision is certain. If it is 0 then we can say that a miss is certain.
The event today may have had a Pc between 0.02 & 0.2. In any case, the Pc was relatively small (compared to a Pc of 1) so a miss was the most likely outcome. For a chain reaction to occur a long & sustained sequence of collisions would need to take place.
For each event in that chain the most likely outcome would be a miss. The probability that collision 1 occurs *and* triggers collision 2 in the chain is even smaller than the original Pc. So the chance that the events in the chain continue will get smaller and smaller.
That's not to say that some version of a chain cannot happen. In fact we sometimes see these chains in our computer simulations: a fragment from an earlier collision hitting another object and creating more fragments that go on to hit other objects.
But these chains do not continue because the probabilities decrease to extremely small values after just a few events. The longest chain I have seen in one of our simulations is 7 events (we found that one amongst 25,000 Monte Carlo runs)
In a paper I am presenting at the European Conference on #SpaceDebris (starting April 20th btw) we simulated the simultaneous collisional breakup of the top 50 statistically most concerning derelict objects in LEO to see what might happen.
Spoiler: no catastrophic collision 'chain reaction' occurred.
It's not all good news though. The space debris population is growing in the manner predicted by Kessler but just not in the way represented in the movie 'Gravity'. We still have a lot of work to do to solve this problem we have created.
Secondly, large constellations and particularly #Starlink seem like easy targets for criticism when referring to the so-called #KesslerSyndrome or collision chain reactions. But the reality is somewhat different thanks to the atmosphere.
At Starlink altitudes the atmospheric drag experienced by the satellites would cause them to decay & re-enter within a relatively short period of time (a few years) even if they were to fail. This is a highly effective debris mitigation measure.
Again, we have simulated this & found that even if 90% of all Starlink satellites were to fail, the long-term impact on the environment is virtually negligible because the atmosphere provides an effective intervention.
Of course collisions could (probably would) still occur but, for the most part, any fragments would decay out of the environment quite quickly. The effect of the atmosphere is one of the key justifications given by SpaceX to the FCC for the change in altitude of the constellation
Based on Kessler's & Anz-Meador's stability model (presented at the 3rd European Conference on #SpaceDebris btw) the number of Starlink satellites proposed does not exceed the critical number of objects needed for a runaway population.
Sure, we need to do more work & Starlink is still a genuine cause for concern for many reasons, but not really because it is a potential 'trigger' for the #KesslerSyndrome. That's a view based on some flawed thinking & we can do better.
That's the end of this PSA. If you made it this far - thanks and well done!
Yeah, I actually think we should go even lower than Starlink. (Although kudos to SpaceX for picking a low altitude.)
...at least until there's an operational deorbiting tug (and a regulatory requirement to use it within a year or two if a spacecraft becomes unresponsive).
Now there is an idea. Deorbit insurance. An addendum to the OST. Deorbit insurance required for all orbital launches. The insurance covers the cost of the deorbit mission for failed sats....at least until there's an operational deorbiting tug (and a regulatory requirement to use it within a year or two if a spacecraft becomes unresponsive).
Plus the requirement to pay insurance to actually fund the thing.
Yup. It has to be an automatic thing. The deorbit tug gets funded to immediately go deorbit it after a certain time. The funds come from the federal government, and the federal government then would get first dibs at the head of the creditors line to recoup deorbit tug fees. They'd be able to claw back salaries, etc....at least until there's an operational deorbiting tug (and a regulatory requirement to use it within a year or two if a spacecraft becomes unresponsive).
Plus the requirement to pay insurance to actually fund the thing.
Naw, no reason for Uncle Sam to get involved beyond oversight. Gotta file proof of insurance with FAA or DOT before receiving launch authority. I'm sure commercial and general aviation need proof of insurance for minimum liability. Use the same mechanism.Yup. It has to be an automatic thing. The deorbit tug gets funded to immediately go deorbit it after a certain time. The funds come from the federal government, and the federal government then would get first dibs at the head of the creditors line to recoup deorbit tug fees. They'd be able to claw back salaries, etc....at least until there's an operational deorbiting tug (and a regulatory requirement to use it within a year or two if a spacecraft becomes unresponsive).
Plus the requirement to pay insurance to actually fund the thing.
Nah, the federal government needs to be involved because they need to be a guaranteed source of revenue. (They're also the ones able to enforce these things... Including launch licenses, etc.) Insurance companies can go out of business, be tied up in negotiations, may have to get to the back of the line, etc. The Federal Government won't do so until after much worse things happen. Federal government would not actually do the deorbiting, they'd contract with someone, giving your entrepreneurs a super steady and reliable funder.Naw, no reason for Uncle Sam to get involved beyond oversight. Gotta file proof of insurance with FAA or DOT before receiving launch authority. I'm sure commercial and general aviation need proof of insurance for minimum liability. Use the same mechanism.Yup. It has to be an automatic thing. The deorbit tug gets funded to immediately go deorbit it after a certain time. The funds come from the federal government, and the federal government then would get first dibs at the head of the creditors line to recoup deorbit tug fees. They'd be able to claw back salaries, etc....at least until there's an operational deorbiting tug (and a regulatory requirement to use it within a year or two if a spacecraft becomes unresponsive).
Plus the requirement to pay insurance to actually fund the thing.
Leave the details to the market, bolstered by government requirements and oversight. Insurance for a sat or booster with no deorbit capability would be VERY expensive. Bad deorbit history? Expensive. Excellent history? Cheap. A lot of opportunity here for entrepreneurial efforts.
Let's leave it here or start a new thread.Nice try. You first! ;)
The immediate issue is that other countries also launch to orbit. If they don't feed the fund, or worse, are shooting their own sats, then what? Also, you are not allowed, at this point anyway, to deorbit someone else's sat without their permission. Correct?Nah, the federal government needs to be involved because they need to be a guaranteed source of revenue. (They're also the ones able to enforce these things... Including launch licenses, etc.) Insurance companies can go out of business, be tied up in negotiations, may have to get to the back of the line, etc. The Federal Government won't do so until after much worse things happen. Federal government would not actually do the deorbiting, they'd contract with someone, giving your entrepreneurs a super steady and reliable funder.Naw, no reason for Uncle Sam to get involved beyond oversight. Gotta file proof of insurance with FAA or DOT before receiving launch authority. I'm sure commercial and general aviation need proof of insurance for minimum liability. Use the same mechanism.Yup. It has to be an automatic thing. The deorbit tug gets funded to immediately go deorbit it after a certain time. The funds come from the federal government, and the federal government then would get first dibs at the head of the creditors line to recoup deorbit tug fees. They'd be able to claw back salaries, etc....at least until there's an operational deorbiting tug (and a regulatory requirement to use it within a year or two if a spacecraft becomes unresponsive).
Plus the requirement to pay insurance to actually fund the thing.
Leave the details to the market, bolstered by government requirements and oversight. Insurance for a sat or booster with no deorbit capability would be VERY expensive. Bad deorbit history? Expensive. Excellent history? Cheap. A lot of opportunity here for entrepreneurial efforts.QuoteLet's leave it here or start a new thread.Nice try. You first! ;)
Aren't the One Web satellites supposed to be in a much higher orbit than SpaceX satellites? How did this happen?They don't teleport the satellites to a higher orbit. Same coming back down for test or end of life Onewebs. If you're the trespasser with a working sat, it's probably your responsibilty to dodge.
If the movement is so fast and attitude changing the even a +-5 degree pointing track can be maintained like on a vessel in very rough seas or a vehicle on very rough terrain. [...] The more robust/faster/accurate the sensor data and the faster the processors/ASICs the rougher the movement that can be handled. Basically a divide between consumer, business, and military UT hardware. With each step up in the environment it can handle being more expensive.It should not be much more expensive for SpaceX to handle almost any reasonable movement. A car in a spin or a fighter plane in a roll can change satellite directions by about 1 full turn (2*pi radians) in about 1 second. Ships are slower yet. The array is about 40 elements across, so each beam subtends about 1/40 of a radian. Therefore the fastest practical motion to track involves about 250 updates per second to the phases. Even if the updates are by some slow mechanism (say a shift register through all 1500 elements, with 8 bits to each) SpaceX should easily be able to update pointing at 1000 times per second, much more than required, using their existing antenna architecture.
SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell, in a November interview, said Starlink satellites are not "worth servicing" given the low cost of each one.
But in the future she would "love to" use Starship to pick up a "troublesome" Starlink and reduce space debris.
https://youtu.be/GomoD0rYhJ8
Shotwell: "I know that's really hard, and it's very much kind of a futuristic concept" for Starship.
"But I definitely think that that's something worth pursuing."
Aren't the One Web satellites supposed to be in a much higher orbit than SpaceX satellites? How did this happen?They don't teleport the satellites to a higher orbit. Same coming back down for test or end of life Onewebs. If you're the trespasser with a working sat, it's probably your responsibilty to dodge.
Naw, it'd only get 4-5 posts before starting to run in circles. Not worth it. Feel free. ;DNah, the federal government needs to be involved because they need to be a guaranteed source of revenue. (They're also the ones able to enforce these things... Including launch licenses, etc.) Insurance companies can go out of business, be tied up in negotiations, may have to get to the back of the line, etc. The Federal Government won't do so until after much worse things happen. Federal government would not actually do the deorbiting, they'd contract with someone, giving your entrepreneurs a super steady and reliable funder.Naw, no reason for Uncle Sam to get involved beyond oversight. Gotta file proof of insurance with FAA or DOT before receiving launch authority. I'm sure commercial and general aviation need proof of insurance for minimum liability. Use the same mechanism.Yup. It has to be an automatic thing. The deorbit tug gets funded to immediately go deorbit it after a certain time. The funds come from the federal government, and the federal government then would get first dibs at the head of the creditors line to recoup deorbit tug fees. They'd be able to claw back salaries, etc....at least until there's an operational deorbiting tug (and a regulatory requirement to use it within a year or two if a spacecraft becomes unresponsive).
Plus the requirement to pay insurance to actually fund the thing.
Leave the details to the market, bolstered by government requirements and oversight. Insurance for a sat or booster with no deorbit capability would be VERY expensive. Bad deorbit history? Expensive. Excellent history? Cheap. A lot of opportunity here for entrepreneurial efforts.QuoteLet's leave it here or start a new thread.Nice try. You first! ;)
Naw, it'd only get 4-5 posts before starting to run in circles. Not worth it. Feel free. ;DNah, the federal government needs to be involved because they need to be a guaranteed source of revenue. (They're also the ones able to enforce these things... Including launch licenses, etc.) Insurance companies can go out of business, be tied up in negotiations, may have to get to the back of the line, etc. The Federal Government won't do so until after much worse things happen. Federal government would not actually do the deorbiting, they'd contract with someone, giving your entrepreneurs a super steady and reliable funder.Naw, no reason for Uncle Sam to get involved beyond oversight. Gotta file proof of insurance with FAA or DOT before receiving launch authority. I'm sure commercial and general aviation need proof of insurance for minimum liability. Use the same mechanism.Yup. It has to be an automatic thing. The deorbit tug gets funded to immediately go deorbit it after a certain time. The funds come from the federal government, and the federal government then would get first dibs at the head of the creditors line to recoup deorbit tug fees. They'd be able to claw back salaries, etc....at least until there's an operational deorbiting tug (and a regulatory requirement to use it within a year or two if a spacecraft becomes unresponsive).
Plus the requirement to pay insurance to actually fund the thing.
Leave the details to the market, bolstered by government requirements and oversight. Insurance for a sat or booster with no deorbit capability would be VERY expensive. Bad deorbit history? Expensive. Excellent history? Cheap. A lot of opportunity here for entrepreneurial efforts.QuoteLet's leave it here or start a new thread.Nice try. You first! ;)
I hope I don't get into trouble for this, but I don't know where else to find people interested in Starlink. I bought a unit I wish to sell in BC, preferably Vancouver Island. I had hoped to use it for mobile (on a boat), but any motion causes it to disconnect and takes 4 to 30 minutes to re-connect.You might want to check to see if it's transferable. They can't stop you from selling it but that doesn't mean they are obligated to let it connect. If it transfers you shouldn't have any trouble finding someone.
I hope I don't get into trouble for this, but I don't know where else to find people interested in Starlink. I bought a unit I wish to sell in BC, preferably Vancouver Island. I had hoped to use it for mobile (on a boat), but any motion causes it to disconnect and takes 4 to 30 minutes to re-connect.You might want to check to see if it's transferable. They can't stop you from selling it but that doesn't mean they are obligated to let it connect. If it transfers you shouldn't have any trouble finding someone.
Have you thought about finding a gyro stabilized gimbal mount? We'd all be interested in how that works.
Yo, Chris. Is there an NSF GoFundMe?
I hope I don't get into trouble for this, but I don't know where else to find people interested in Starlink. I bought a unit I wish to sell in BC, preferably Vancouver Island. I had hoped to use it for mobile (on a boat), but any motion causes it to disconnect and takes 4 to 30 minutes to re-connect.You might want to check to see if it's transferable. They can't stop you from selling it but that doesn't mean they are obligated to let it connect. If it transfers you shouldn't have any trouble finding someone.
Have you thought about finding a gyro stabilized gimbal mount? We'd all be interested in how that works.
Yo, Chris. Is there an NSF GoFundMe?
Turns out you are correct, they will not transfer the subscription. But they are allowing me to return it even though it is past the 30 day limit.
I hope I don't get into trouble for this, but I don't know where else to find people interested in Starlink. I bought a unit I wish to sell in BC, preferably Vancouver Island. I had hoped to use it for mobile (on a boat), but any motion causes it to disconnect and takes 4 to 30 minutes to re-connect.
Starlink could be producing 100's of millions in revenue in a few years time.
Starlink could be producing 100's of millions in revenue in a few years time.
You know this is chump change....like a single dragon flight.
Starlink could be producing 100's of millions in revenue in a few years time.
You know this is chump change....like a single dragon flight.
I think that is the secret sauce, people are thinking regionally 10s of millions of subscribers and not in 10s of billions of subscribers equaling trillions in revue.
...people are thinking regionally 10s of millions of subscribers and not in 10s of billions of subscribers equaling trillions in revue.
I think Starlink has enormous potential, but there aren't 10s of billions of people in the world.
The potential customer base is huge, but not that huge...
I don't see any reason spaceX and starlink won't reach into the millions of customers in a matter of 1 or 2 years.
breaking 2 million customers in as little as 12 months? What would a 200 fold increase in the number of users have on the network's service level that isn't that different than the one they have now? They aren't adding ~200,000 subscribers per month, not even close.
But I don't think it really matters. Investors are paying $7.4 million per subscriber. That is where the real money is at.
For FedEx and UPS, StarLink probably isn't a good solution. Trucking started using sat links a long time ago but as cell coverage spread the service moved to it. Starlink shines where the last mile infrastructure sucks. There's plenty of business to be had there....people are thinking regionally 10s of millions of subscribers and not in 10s of billions of subscribers equaling trillions in revue.
I think Starlink has enormous potential, but there aren't 10s of billions of people in the world.
The potential customer base is huge, but not that huge...
The number of potential Starlink installations (i.e. customers) isn't related to a number of people.
It's related to a number of structures (including commercial buildings, residences, and utility structures like towers) and a number of vehicles large enough to mount a Starlink terminal on (planes, ships, UPS delivery vans, and so on.)
I have no idea what those numbers are; Internet searches revealed that there are apparently 1.2 billion homes world-wide and that UPS and FEDEX appear to have about 280,000 large vehicles (delivery trucks and tractors) between them.
Seems like this could be relevant for long haul truckers though. I’m sure satellite coverage is better than cell coverage in some areas on these longer trips.For FedEx and UPS, StarLink probably isn't a good solution. Trucking started using sat links a long time ago but as cell coverage spread the service moved to it. Starlink shines where the last mile infrastructure sucks. There's plenty of business to be had there....people are thinking regionally 10s of millions of subscribers and not in 10s of billions of subscribers equaling trillions in revue.
I think Starlink has enormous potential, but there aren't 10s of billions of people in the world.
The potential customer base is huge, but not that huge...
The number of potential Starlink installations (i.e. customers) isn't related to a number of people.
It's related to a number of structures (including commercial buildings, residences, and utility structures like towers) and a number of vehicles large enough to mount a Starlink terminal on (planes, ships, UPS delivery vans, and so on.)
I have no idea what those numbers are; Internet searches revealed that there are apparently 1.2 billion homes world-wide and that UPS and FEDEX appear to have about 280,000 large vehicles (delivery trucks and tractors) between them.
What early users of SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet think about the service, speed and more
PUBLISHED THU, APR 15 2021 1:30 PM EDT
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ
To go along with my deep dive report, I also helped make this video on what the satellite project means for the company:
Watch: Why Starlink Is Crucial To SpaceX’s Success
cnbc.com/2021/04/15/spa…
It's probably going to get fuzzier than "cell or satellite". Putting a small cell site up isn't that much trouble. Hooking it to the system is the hard part. I always expected the telcos to be major Starlink customers once they realize they can get circuits to remote sites a whole lot faster and cheaper than laying fiber there.Seems like this could be relevant for long haul truckers though. I’m sure satellite coverage is better than cell coverage in some areas on these longer trips.For FedEx and UPS, StarLink probably isn't a good solution. Trucking started using sat links a long time ago but as cell coverage spread the service moved to it. Starlink shines where the last mile infrastructure sucks. There's plenty of business to be had there....people are thinking regionally 10s of millions of subscribers and not in 10s of billions of subscribers equaling trillions in revue.
I think Starlink has enormous potential, but there aren't 10s of billions of people in the world.
The potential customer base is huge, but not that huge...
The number of potential Starlink installations (i.e. customers) isn't related to a number of people.
It's related to a number of structures (including commercial buildings, residences, and utility structures like towers) and a number of vehicles large enough to mount a Starlink terminal on (planes, ships, UPS delivery vans, and so on.)
I have no idea what those numbers are; Internet searches revealed that there are apparently 1.2 billion homes world-wide and that UPS and FEDEX appear to have about 280,000 large vehicles (delivery trucks and tractors) between them.
I surveyed over 50 users of SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet over the past few months, to get their impressions of the service so far.
Here's what they said about pricing, installation, speed, reliability and more:
This is accurate. Service uptime, bandwidth & latency are improving rapidly. Probably out of beta this summer.
Will users always be locked into one location or in the future if a user has the standard Dishy McFlatface (not a new portable one), could you say put it on an RV or tiny home? Or maybe take one you have in Iowa and put it in a studio in Texas 🤔
Yeah, should be fully mobile later this year, so you can move it anywhere or use it on an RV or truck in motion. We need a few more satellite launches to achieve compete coverage & some key software upgrades.
Based on 1500 satellites, $400k/sat construction cost, $500k/sat launch cost, 15% of the global surface area being revenue earning at any given time, 100mb target bandwidth per user, 20gb capacity per satellite, a 5x over subscription ratio and a net dish cost to SpaceX of $1000, that generates an annual revenue for SpaceX of $540m, from 450k subscribers, and a gross profit of around $180m.Maybe I missed it, but I don't see, other than the 20% "overhead" any allocation of cost to actually interacting with customers.
Those are based on VERY conservative numbers, by the way. Increase the satellite bandwidth capacity, decrease the dish cost, or halve the construction and/or launch cost per satellite and the profits skyrocket.
This can be easily extrapolated for 4000, 12000 or any number of satellites. I went further to include a whopping 20% annual overheads cost on top of the above, and profits were STILL very impressive (sitting at 20% net profit, despite ludicrously overstated cost assumptions).
This is a VERY healthy business model.
Based on 1500 satellites, $400k/sat construction cost, $500k/sat launch cost, 15% of the global surface area being revenue earning at any given time, 100mb target bandwidth per user, 20gb capacity per satellite, a 5x over subscription ratio and a net dish cost to SpaceX of $1000, that generates an annual revenue for SpaceX of $540m, from 450k subscribers, and a gross profit of around $180m.Maybe I missed it, but I don't see, other than the 20% "overhead" any allocation of cost to actually interacting with customers.
Those are based on VERY conservative numbers, by the way. Increase the satellite bandwidth capacity, decrease the dish cost, or halve the construction and/or launch cost per satellite and the profits skyrocket.
This can be easily extrapolated for 4000, 12000 or any number of satellites. I went further to include a whopping 20% annual overheads cost on top of the above, and profits were STILL very impressive (sitting at 20% net profit, despite ludicrously overstated cost assumptions).
This is a VERY healthy business model.
That pesky matter of customer service which has many of us so unhappy with Comcast, AT&T and the rest, is actually enormously expensive. Elon gets this, to the extent that he has mentioned how crucially important it is that most of the user terminals never get a visit from a SpaceX tech. I'm not sure he has figured out how important it is that most customers never try to contact SpaceX AT ALL. That depends not just on the product, but on the customers, who can be a pesky bunch.
I greatly hope for the success of StarLink. I think Elon's "everybody else trying this has gone bankrupt" lowball is closer to a good outcomes forecast than is the rosy scenario.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see, other than the 20% "overhead" any allocation of cost to actually interacting with customers.
...
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see, other than the 20% "overhead" any allocation of cost to actually interacting with customers.
...
Level of customer interaction for support (as in live people) also depends on how much of the stack the provider controls, and the level of automation for identifying-correcting problems, preferably preemptively. One of my major gripes with Comcast is that they seem to depend on customers reporting problems. If enough people complain, they declare an outage, and if I have their app on my phone, I can go check (typically delayed). Or if it's just me, I end up on the phone with a customer service (CS) rep.
I hope and expect Starlink is ahead of this. They control the user terminal. They control the sats. They control the ground station interface from sats to Internet backbone. Yes, Comcast et. al. have nominal control over their infrastructure, but they don't seem to do a very good job of communicating with their customers in an effective or timely manner. E.g., would love to see communication from Comcast that "we have noticed a significant reduction in performance at your location, please take the following steps ..."
In short, timely and effective communication with customers would go a long way to reducing human CS interactions and costs. Given Musk's traditional MO, hope and expect that, and the automation to back it, is baked into Starlink.
Shotwell said the company has already tested two generations of that technology on some of its satellites. “The first ones that we flew were very expensive. The second round of technology that we flew was less expensive,” she said.
A third generation of laser intersatellite links will start flying “in the next few months,” she said. She didn’t elaborate on those plans, but it’s likely those will be included on satellite the company is preparing to launch to polar orbits. The new technology, she said, will be able to operate over longer distances and provide high bandwidth, while being “much less expensive” than earlier versions.
QuoteThis is accurate. Service uptime, bandwidth & latency are improving rapidly. Probably out of beta this summer.
Shotwell noted that SpaceX does not “have a timeframe for getting out of the beta phase,” saying that the company still has “a lot of work to do to make the network reliable.”
What gives?
SpaceX presented the attached fact sheet with an accurate chronology of events that demonstrates the coordination was successful and there was never a risk of a collision.
Despite recent reports to the contrary, the parties made clear that there was no "close call" or "near miss." SpaceX and OneWeb agreed that they had conducted a successful coordination, resulting in a positive outcome. The probability of collision never exceeded the threshold for a maneuver, and the satellites would not have collided even if no maneuver had been conducted. As further detailed in the attached fact sheet, and despite OneWeb's previous public claims, SpaceX's autonomous collision avoidance system was and remains fully functional at all times. SpaceX only turned off the capability at OneWeb's explicit request after OneWeb decided to conduct a maneuver.
OneWeb 's misleading public statements coincide with OneWeb's intensified efforts to prevent SpaceX from completing a safety upgrade to its system. For instance, immediately after the first inaccurate quotes came out in media accounts, OneWeb met with Commission staff and Commissioners demanding unilateral conditions placed on SpaceX’s operations. Ironically, the conditions demanded by OneWeb would make it more difficult to successfully coordinate operations going forward, demonstrating more of a concern with limiting competitors than with a genuine concern for space safety.
• the maneuver threshold for Starlink satellites is 1e-5 and that maneuvers occur approximately 12 hours before the predicted closest approach of the satellites
• if a maneuver was needed, typically a single in-track burn would be conducted to reduce collision probability.
• OneWeb acknowledged that the covariance (i.e., accuracy) in its propagated ephemerides (i.e., predicted location of satellites) are biased low and this bias is a known issue.
• SpaceX reiterated its recommendation to wait for another CDM from 18 SPCS before planning a maneuver because SpaceX systems indicated this was the least risky approach.
• OneWeb satellites need more time to coordinate and plan their maneuvers than Starlink satellites require, so OneWeb did not want to wait and chose instead to maneuver OneWeb-0178.
• Because OneWeb decided to plan a maneuver, it asked SpaceX to turn off Starlink-1546’s autonomous conjunction avoidance system. SpaceX obliged this request and confirmed to OneWeb
that the system had been turned off.
• 18 SPCS reported actual miss distance as 1,120 m.
• LeoLabs reported actual miss distance as 1,072 m.
• Both 18 SPCS and LeoLabs reported final Pc below 1e-20—one in one hundred million million million—this was not a close call or a near miss
From personal experience, ~1.5M mi. OTR. Modern in-truck comms are quite good. It's a rare shutdown place that doesn't have adequate cell coverage, and interstates are well covered. There are places where coverage is poor but if you're moving you get over it.Seems like this could be relevant for long haul truckers though. I’m sure satellite coverage is better than cell coverage in some areas on these longer trips.For FedEx and UPS, StarLink probably isn't a good solution. Trucking started using sat links a long time ago but as cell coverage spread the service moved to it. Starlink shines where the last mile infrastructure sucks. There's plenty of business to be had there....people are thinking regionally 10s of millions of subscribers and not in 10s of billions of subscribers equaling trillions in revue.
I think Starlink has enormous potential, but there aren't 10s of billions of people in the world.
The potential customer base is huge, but not that huge...
The number of potential Starlink installations (i.e. customers) isn't related to a number of people.
It's related to a number of structures (including commercial buildings, residences, and utility structures like towers) and a number of vehicles large enough to mount a Starlink terminal on (planes, ships, UPS delivery vans, and so on.)
I have no idea what those numbers are; Internet searches revealed that there are apparently 1.2 billion homes world-wide and that UPS and FEDEX appear to have about 280,000 large vehicles (delivery trucks and tractors) between them.
15% of the global surface area being revenue earning at any given time,Sorry . how many user you mean under //15% of the global surface area??
, 20gb capacity per satellite,
Trucking is not a market to be ruled out but it's not the low hanging fruit.Shipping - passenger, freight and military - on the other hand is very low-hanging fruit
Map of SpaceX Starlink gateways. Gateways are used to connect orbiting satellites to the core Starlink network/Internet. The circles show where a Starlink satellite at 550 km can connect to a gateway. Coverage provided by a satellite can extend beyond the connected gateway service area. All US gateways filed with the FCC are on the map. In other countries most likely not all gateways are shown.
Someone has gone to the trouble of making a map of Starlink ground stations:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1H1x8jZs8vfjy60TvKgpbYs_grargieVw&ll=18.50343341913415%2C-61.40922437031843&z=5QuoteMap of SpaceX Starlink gateways. Gateways are used to connect orbiting satellites to the core Starlink network/Internet. The circles show where a Starlink satellite at 550 km can connect to a gateway. Coverage provided by a satellite can extend beyond the connected gateway service area. All US gateways filed with the FCC are on the map. In other countries most likely not all gateways are shown.
The FCC has approved SpaceX's request to fly a chunk of Starlink satellites at altitudes lower than initially planned, Bloomberg reports, an upset for satellite rivals who long argued the modification would ramp up collision risks.
SpaceX wins FCC approval to operate 2,814 Starlink satellites in lower orbits than originally planned. The FCC concluded "that this modification does not create significant interference problems" and allows SpaceX to make safety-focused changes to its constellation deployment.
Amazon statement on the FCC approving SpaceX's Starlink modification:
"This is a positive outcome that places clear conditions on SpaceX ... These conditions address our primary concerns regarding space safety and interference."
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/27/fcc-approves-spacex-starlink-modification-despite-objections.html $AMZN
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1387099970705166337QuoteAmazon statement on the FCC approving SpaceX's Starlink modification:
"This is a positive outcome that places clear conditions on SpaceX ... These conditions address our primary concerns regarding space safety and interference."
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/27/fcc-approves-spacex-starlink-modification-despite-objections.html $AMZN
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1387099970705166337QuoteAmazon statement on the FCC approving SpaceX's Starlink modification:
"This is a positive outcome that places clear conditions on SpaceX ... These conditions address our primary concerns regarding space safety and interference."
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/27/fcc-approves-spacex-starlink-modification-despite-objections.html $AMZN
Right... Bezos' PR machine trying to spin yet another loss into a win.
Amazon is happy about SpaceX's Starlink modification. In a statement, they pointed to an FCC condition that requires SpaceX to "accept" any interference from Amazon's Kuiper constellation in the future.
News – The FCC approves SpaceX's third modification to its Starlink license, despite objections from companies including Amazon and Viasat, in a win for Elon Musk's growing satellite internet network:
FCC is fair & sensible. NHTSA & FAA too. 99.9% of the time, I agree with regulators!
On rare occasions, we disagree. This is almost always due to new technologies that past regulations didn’t anticipate.
Elon Musk was SpaceX's lead on Starlink until mid-2020, when Gwynne Shotwell shifted her focus to the satellite program while Musk's focus moved to Starship: "His emphasis is to get the Starship program to orbit."
Right... Bezos' PR machine trying to spin yet another loss into a win.Let them have it.
What's the reason SpaceX's 2021 manifest is mostly Starlink with barely any commercial & NASA launches?A total of 28 (planned) non-starlink launches (including 4 crewed launches!) for 2021 does not count as "barely" in my book.
My assumption is that the backlog of previous missions was already cleared, but I think there has to be another valid reason.
What's the reason SpaceX's 2021 manifest is mostly Starlink with barely any commercial & NASA launches?
My assumption is that the backlog of previous missions was already cleared, but I think there has to be another valid reason.
Either way, on Twitter, I stated before Wednesday's launch that 2021 could be "The Year of Starlink".
https://twitter.com/ZachSellinger/status/1387582873725775876?s=20
What's the reason SpaceX's 2021 manifest is mostly Starlink with barely any commercial & NASA launches?A total of 28 (planned) non-starlink launches (including 4 crewed launches!) for 2021 does not count as "barely" in my book.
My assumption is that the backlog of previous missions was already cleared, but I think there has to be another valid reason.
My source is the Wikipedia page with (planned) F9 launches. No idea if that actually contains the most recent knowledge. And I didn't count Starlink rideshares.What's the reason SpaceX's 2021 manifest is mostly Starlink with barely any commercial & NASA launches?A total of 28 (planned) non-starlink launches (including 4 crewed launches!) for 2021 does not count as "barely" in my book.
My assumption is that the backlog of previous missions was already cleared, but I think there has to be another valid reason.
I only see 20 and expect some of those to slip. Probably end up in the mid teens. Still, the external payloads do pick up greatly starting in June.
2021 is not unique. 2020 had 14 Starlink to 12 all others.My source is the Wikipedia page with (planned) F9 launches. No idea if that actually contains the most recent knowledge. And I didn't count Starlink rideshares.What's the reason SpaceX's 2021 manifest is mostly Starlink with barely any commercial & NASA launches?A total of 28 (planned) non-starlink launches (including 4 crewed launches!) for 2021 does not count as "barely" in my book.
My assumption is that the backlog of previous missions was already cleared, but I think there has to be another valid reason.
I only see 20 and expect some of those to slip. Probably end up in the mid teens. Still, the external payloads do pick up greatly starting in June.
However, 20 commercial launches also don't count as "barely any commercial launches".
It looks like a lot of the upcoming StarLink launches will be out of Vandenberg. This takes pressure off of the cape. AIUI, the stable of boosters is getting thin which could be a problem. Do we have any info on new builds?What's the reason SpaceX's 2021 manifest is mostly Starlink with barely any commercial & NASA launches?A total of 28 (planned) non-starlink launches (including 4 crewed launches!) for 2021 does not count as "barely" in my book.
My assumption is that the backlog of previous missions was already cleared, but I think there has to be another valid reason.
I only see 20 and expect some of those to slip. Probably end up in the mid teens. Still, the external payloads do pick up greatly starting in June.
It looks like a lot of the upcoming StarLink launches will be out of Vandenberg. This takes pressure off of the cape.
Related to that, is this an SBIR award to SpaceX or to somebody else? I ask because SpaceX isn't such a "small business."The SBIR is for a study. So the small business would do the study for DARPA.
I thought they were getting ready to start filling in the polar planes. Can be done from the cape but isn't there a payload penalty?It looks like a lot of the upcoming StarLink launches will be out of Vandenberg. This takes pressure off of the cape.
Most of the Starlink launches should still be from Florida.
I thought they were getting ready to start filling in the polar planes. Can be done from the cape but isn't there a payload penalty?It looks like a lot of the upcoming StarLink launches will be out of Vandenberg. This takes pressure off of the cape.
Most of the Starlink launches should still be from Florida.
It looks like a lot of the upcoming StarLink launches will be out of Vandenberg. This takes pressure off of the cape.
Most of the Starlink launches should still be from Florida.
Only 520 sats are going into polar (SSO) orbit. A slightly larger chunk (720) are going to 70 degrees. There will be more satellites (1584) going to 53.2 degrees than there are to SSO and 70 degrees combined.Still, SSO gets 8+ launches, and 70 deg gets 12. Both can be done from the cape with mass penalties. SSO from Vandie has less penalty. I think 70 works better from Vandie and 53.2 better from the Cape. The mix gives options to keep the pace up if the Cape is busy. I loves options.
Do we know when they're starting production deployment into polar orbits?
Those satellites have a pretty hard requirement for inter-satellite links because they will mostly serve extremely remote areas that are too far from ground stations.
Distance between birds aside, it should be easier. Relative motion should be close to zip.Do we know when they're starting production deployment into polar orbits?
Those satellites have a pretty hard requirement for inter-satellite links because they will mostly serve extremely remote areas that are too far from ground stations.
I recall seeing information a few months ago that they would start launching them out of Vandenberg in July.
The laser inter links are key for sure, my question is are the laser inter links between spacecraft in the same plane easier than crossing between planes? Seems to me they would be, if they are then the polar birds can carry traffic from a ground station in the lower 48 to over the poles.
Related to that, is this an SBIR award to SpaceX or to somebody else? I ask because SpaceX isn't such a "small business."
Who can provide the full list launches from the first one on February 18, 2018? Thanks.
I know it's a stupid question, but maybe someone knows who will be a late bird from SpaceX media team
to comment live from main place from Hawthorne at California tomorrow Starlink's night hour launch at 11:42 p.m. PDT?
BTW, Did someone is making statistics which media team (Jessie Anderson, Michael Andrews, Siva Bharadvaj, Tom Braderio, Louren Lyons, Kate Tice, Andy Tran and Youmei Zhou)
during which Starlinks launch transmission from L1 to L24 to provide live comments[/i]?
I know the last two were:
L25 (04/29/21) - Jessie Anderson;
L26 (05/04/21) - Siva Bharadvaj;
During Crew-1 return (May 01,02/21) the SpaceX's team was: Jessie Anderson/Andy Tran/Kate Tice/John Insprucker
Who can provide the full list launches from the first one on February 18, 2018 with names from media team? Thanks.
Comments are welcome.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp.'s (SpaceX) internet service arm, Starlink, faced a setback in a crucial proceeding underway at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Starlink's user terminals rely on the 12GHz frequency band to communicate with orbiting satellites, and it shares the frequencies with Multi Video Data Distribution Service (MVDDS) providers.
The MVDDS providers petitioned the FCC to change its rules for sharing the frequencies, and in a proceeding that aims to set new rules stopped taking suggestions from the affected parties on Friday. Starlink and other Non-geostationary orbit fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) service providers requested the FCC extend the deadline for filing these comments, as Michael Dell-backed RS Access LLC did not submit a crucial study to allow them to respond. However, in its ruling made earlier this week, the Commission has denied the request for further extending the comment submission deadline.
I know it's a stupid question, but maybe someone knows who will be a late bird from SpaceX media team
to comment live from main place from Hawthorne at California tomorrow Starlink's night hour launch at 11:42 p.m. PDT?
BTW, Did someone is making statistics which media team (Jessie Anderson, Michael Andrews, Siva Bharadvaj, Tom Braderio, Lauren Lyons, Kate Tice, Andy Tran and Youmei Zhou)
during which Starlinks launch transmission from L1 to L24 to provide live comments[/i]?
I know the last two were:
L25 (04/29/21) - Jessie Anderson;
L26 (05/04/21) - Siva Bharadvaj;
During Crew-1 return (May 01,02/21) the SpaceX's team was: Jessie Anderson/Andy Tran/Kate Tice/John Insprucker
Who can provide the full list launches from the first one on February 18, 2018 with names from media team? Thanks.
Comments are welcome.
L01 (05/24/19) - Tom Braderio;
.
.
L24 (04/07/21) - Jessie Anderson;
(it's interesting that such launch transmission has a cast of two members of media team
The list must contain number of flights and media team during launch transmission.
Here is this statistics for all Starlinks launches: including test and Transporter1:
Here is this statistics for all Starlinks launches: including test and Transporter1:
Lyons' name is incorrect:
http://www.lauren-lyons.com/#main
Google wins cloud deal from Elon Musk’s SpaceX for Starlink internet connectivity
PUBLISHED THU, MAY 13 20218:30 AM EDT
Jordan Novet
@JORDANNOVET
KEY POINTS
Google announced that its cloud unit has won a deal to supply computing and networking resources to Elon Musk’s SpaceX to help deliver internet service through the latter’s Starlink satellites.
The Starlink satellite internet will rely on Google’s private fiber-optic network to quickly make connections to cloud services as part of a deal that could last seven years.
Fight over 12GHz continues: Starlink Faces Setback In Crucial FCC Fight Set To Decide Its Fate (https://wccftech.com/starlink-faces-setback-in-crucial-fcc-fight-set-to-decide-its-fate/)QuoteSpace Exploration Technologies Corp.'s (SpaceX) internet service arm, Starlink, faced a setback in a crucial proceeding underway at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Starlink's user terminals rely on the 12GHz frequency band to communicate with orbiting satellites, and it shares the frequencies with Multi Video Data Distribution Service (MVDDS) providers.
The MVDDS providers petitioned the FCC to change its rules for sharing the frequencies, and in a proceeding that aims to set new rules stopped taking suggestions from the affected parties on Friday. Starlink and other Non-geostationary orbit fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) service providers requested the FCC extend the deadline for filing these comments, as Michael Dell-backed RS Access LLC did not submit a crucial study to allow them to respond. However, in its ruling made earlier this week, the Commission has denied the request for further extending the comment submission deadline.
Fight over 12GHz continues: Starlink Faces Setback In Crucial FCC Fight Set To Decide Its Fate (https://wccftech.com/starlink-faces-setback-in-crucial-fcc-fight-set-to-decide-its-fate/)QuoteSpace Exploration Technologies Corp.'s (SpaceX) internet service arm, Starlink, faced a setback in a crucial proceeding underway at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Starlink's user terminals rely on the 12GHz frequency band to communicate with orbiting satellites, and it shares the frequencies with Multi Video Data Distribution Service (MVDDS) providers.
The MVDDS providers petitioned the FCC to change its rules for sharing the frequencies, and in a proceeding that aims to set new rules stopped taking suggestions from the affected parties on Friday. Starlink and other Non-geostationary orbit fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) service providers requested the FCC extend the deadline for filing these comments, as Michael Dell-backed RS Access LLC did not submit a crucial study to allow them to respond. However, in its ruling made earlier this week, the Commission has denied the request for further extending the comment submission deadline.
I'd love to know more about this, is this a showerstopper?
if FCC rules against SpaceX using the 12Ghz band, what is the net effect on starlink?
Was SpaceX using this band without permission up to now?
Can the FCC revoke their permission to use it after they already had permission?
What's the deal, does anyone know more about this?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/13/google-cloud-wins-spacex-deal-for-starlink-internet-connectivity.htmlQuoteGoogle wins cloud deal from Elon Musk’s SpaceX for Starlink internet connectivity
PUBLISHED THU, MAY 13 20218:30 AM EDT
Jordan Novet
@JORDANNOVET
KEY POINTS
Google announced that its cloud unit has won a deal to supply computing and networking resources to Elon Musk’s SpaceX to help deliver internet service through the latter’s Starlink satellites.
The Starlink satellite internet will rely on Google’s private fiber-optic network to quickly make connections to cloud services as part of a deal that could last seven years.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/13/google-cloud-wins-spacex-deal-for-starlink-internet-connectivity.htmlQuoteGoogle wins cloud deal from Elon Musk’s SpaceX for Starlink internet connectivity
PUBLISHED THU, MAY 13 20218:30 AM EDT
Jordan Novet
@JORDANNOVET
KEY POINTS
Google announced that its cloud unit has won a deal to supply computing and networking resources to Elon Musk’s SpaceX to help deliver internet service through the latter’s Starlink satellites.
The Starlink satellite internet will rely on Google’s private fiber-optic network to quickly make connections to cloud services as part of a deal that could last seven years.
Am I reading correctly that the only real significance of this deal is that Starlink will have full-up ground stations at Google's data centers?
After all, Starlink already uses some Google network services.
We have a lot of different types of test environments. Some are purely simulated environments, what we call HOOTLs (or Hardware Out Of The Loop). These can run in CI/CD but also on a developer's desktop for local iteration. Others involve flight-like hardware, what we call HITLs (Hardware In The Loop). Our Starlink HITL setups are just satellites we take off the production line and integrate with our CI systems.
One unique thing about testing for a large satellite constellation is that we can actually use "canary" satellites to test out new features. We run regression tests on the software to ensure it won't break critical functionality, but then we can select a satellite, deploy the new feature, and monitor how it behaves with minimal risk to the constellation.
Q: Could you elaborate on the software/firmware update processes for starlink? Are releases incremental across the constellation? How frequently are updated/releases made?
We try to roll out new builds to our entire fleet of assets (satellites, ground stations, user terminals, and WiFi routers) once per week. Every device is periodically checking in with our servers to see if it's supposed to fetch a new build, and if one is available it will download and apply the update during the ideal time to minimize impact to users. This means we can really easily test builds on a small pool and move to exponential deployments by changing a few configurations in a database.
Q: What challenges must be overcome to implement continuous integration and delivery for embedded, in-orbit systems like Starlink? Do you deploy your software in containers? What are the challenges in testing such an expansive network?
To manage a large satellite constellation without needing hundreds of human operators, we rely on software automation running on the ground and on the satellites. In order to fully test our systems in an end-to-end configuration, that means we have to integrate hundreds of different software services in a dev environment.
Another challenge in testing is that it's not always possible to test every single capability with one test. For example, we want automated tests that exercise the satellite-to-ground communication links. We have HITL (hardware in the loop) testbeds of the satellites, and we can set up a mock ground station with a fixed antenna. We can run a test where we simulate the satellite flying over the ground station, but we have to override the software so that it thinks it is always in contact with our fixed antenna. This lets us test the full RF and network stack, but doesn't let us test antenna pointing logic. Alternatively we can run pure software simulations to test antenna pointing. We have to make sure that we have sufficient piecemeal testing of all the important aspects of the system.
Q: In general terms, can you describe the complexity of Starlink’s telemetry system with fixed ground terminals, and how much more complexity is added by in-motion use cases like boats or RVs?
The biggest challenge we have to solve when thinking about fixed ground terminals is how to allocate "beams" from satellites to each spot on earth we want to serve. We have to take into account how many users need bandwidth, radio interference from other satellites (including ourselves!), and field of view constraints.
Motion does not generally add much complexity for the telemetry system. It does present some interesting challenges when it comes to satellites for example which are out of contact from the ground in parts of their orbit. This means our telemetry system has to be resilient to out of order and/or late arriving telemetry.
Moving targets require us to solve the attitude determination problem (which way is dishy pointing?) quickly and continuously. They also change the number of users are in a given spot at once, which affects how much bandwidth is needed there.
Q: What are some plans to make production of the Starlink dishys more scaleable?
For the production scale we're looking to achieve with Starlink kits, we've been building from the ground up for much of what we're doing here, growing into a new factory with new software systems that have been designed with Starlink's planned scale in mind. The software team is colocated in the factory with everyone else that is thinking about this problem, and they have spent time building Starlinks on the line to ensure they've understood the high rate manufacturing processes as well as they can. For a factory producing at our desired target rate we're looking to have a highly integrated factory system, with automation, robots, people, and software working together. The guiding principle is generally to keep looking for how much we can simplify what we're doing.
Q: How do you manage the different versions of software with the different versions of boosters/starlink sats?
For Starlink, we try as hard as possible to have a single software load for all satellites, regardless of the specific versions of each sub-component on any given vehicle. We do this by making clean separations between hardware interface layers and the "business" logic on various components. The software reads various hardware identifiers to understand what types of each thing we've got and adapts its behavior accordingly.
Q: Could you tell us more about Starlink’s telemetry system? What problems did you face and how did you solve them?
When we were getting started we already had a great in-house telemetry system but it has a core concept of a "run" - a definite start and stop time for a given dataset. Starlink doesn't fit that model because there are many devices that are always on and can send data out of order or with significant delay so these were some of the first problems we had to solve. Along the way some of the most interesting challenges have been around fault domains and fault tolerance - how do we make sure parts of the system have as much availability as possible? If one set of devices emits information that breaks expectations, how can we limit the impact of that to as small of a subset of software as possible so other datasets continue to be processed? We also chose to not keep all data but created a powerful system to aggregate information over time as well as age out information when it is no longer useful.
BTW, Does someone know who from all team will be carry comments during the jubilee 30th Starlink's launch on Wednesday?
A less than honest review of Starlink broadband service from theverge: Starlink Review: Broadband Dreams Fall To Earth (https://www.theverge.com/22435030/starlink-satellite-internet-spacex-review)
A less than honest review of Starlink broadband service from theverge: Starlink Review: Broadband Dreams Fall To Earth (https://www.theverge.com/22435030/starlink-satellite-internet-spacex-review)
Any time someone professes competence when they aren't, I'd call it dishonest. But I don't think that's the case here. I'd go with "less than honest" to be overly polite.A less than honest review of Starlink broadband service from theverge: Starlink Review: Broadband Dreams Fall To Earth (https://www.theverge.com/22435030/starlink-satellite-internet-spacex-review)
It was a review from someone who obviously doesn't follow Starlink or LEO constellations closely at all. I don't think I'd call it dishonest. What they said about the current state of the constellation was probably accurate for their experience. They didn't understand where Starlink is in the buildout and what needs to happen for it to improve.
A less than honest review of Starlink broadband service from theverge: Starlink Review: Broadband Dreams Fall To Earth (https://www.theverge.com/22435030/starlink-satellite-internet-spacex-review)
It was a review from someone who obviously doesn't follow Starlink or LEO constellations closely at all. I don't think I'd call it dishonest. What they said about the current state of the constellation was probably accurate for their experience. They didn't understand where Starlink is in the buildout and what needs to happen for it to improve.
A less than honest review of Starlink broadband service from theverge: Starlink Review: Broadband Dreams Fall To Earth (https://www.theverge.com/22435030/starlink-satellite-internet-spacex-review)Struck me as reasonably balanced. Clearly stated that it's beta and connection shortcomings are advertised as improving with sat numbers. Also stated Verge doesn't do formal reviews of prereleases. Also flipped the finger at legacy telecom and said "Show Me" to SX.
Wow! Last time I met a human not influenced by POV i was at a funeral. Still, he put his POV out there, pointed out real shortcomings and if you measure his Attitude Quotient to legacy internet you'll realize he was challenging SX to show him. His biggest slam IMO was sat visability.A less than honest review of Starlink broadband service from theverge: Starlink Review: Broadband Dreams Fall To Earth (https://www.theverge.com/22435030/starlink-satellite-internet-spacex-review)
It was a review from someone who obviously doesn't follow Starlink or LEO constellations closely at all. I don't think I'd call it dishonest. What they said about the current state of the constellation was probably accurate for their experience. They didn't understand where Starlink is in the buildout and what needs to happen for it to improve.
I went with "less than honest" because the author does seem to know the constellation is not complete yet: "Maybe this will change as the company launches more satellites. Maybe it will eventually work better in areas that are dominated by tall trees. Maybe one day it will not drop out in wind and heavy rain. I didn’t give Starlink a formal review score because the whole thing is openly in beta and the company isn’t making many promises about reliability."
The problem I see here is that the author is not reviewing the product from a neutral perspective, instead the review is influenced by his opinion about how US internet services policy and regulation should be (i.e. US "facility-based competition" vs Europe "service-based competition"). So in his mind Starlink can't be allowed to be successful because it would undermine his opinion that US should use Europe's "service-based competition" model which he thinks would obviate the need for Starlink (even though UK already bought OneWeb and EU is planning their own constellation).
As Viasat pointed out in filings provided to the FCC and viewed by Recode, Starlink isn’t consistently meeting its 100/20 goal, according to some speed tests, and Viasat’s research indicates that Starlink will not be able to surpass various legal, technical, and economic hurdles.
“I’ve been in the industry for 33 years, and I’ve seen many systems come and go,” Viasat’s head of global government affairs, John Janka, said. “And I would say it isn’t the first time I’ve heard these pie-in-the-sky promises. … Everybody got excited. And then they couldn’t deliver.”
The rapid development of mega-constellations risks multiple tragedies of the commons, including tragedies to ground-based astronomy, Earth orbit, and Earth’s upper atmosphere. Moreover, the connections between the Earth and space environments are inadequately taken into account by the adoption of a consumer electronic model applied to space assets. For example, we point out that satellite re-entries from the Starlink mega-constellation alone could deposit more aluminum into Earth’s upper atmosphere than what is done through meteoroids; they could thus become the dominant source of high-altitude alumina. Using simple models, we also show that untracked debris will lead to potentially dangerous on-orbit collisions on a regular basis due to the large number of satellites within mega-constellation orbital shells. The total cross-section of satellites in these constellations also greatly increases the risk of impacts due to meteoroids. De facto orbit occupation by single actors, inadequate regulatory frameworks, and the possibility of free-riding exacerbate these risks. International cooperation is urgently needed, along with a regulatory system that takes into account the effects of tens of thousands of satellites.
There are reasons for hope. SpaceX is showing some leadership with rapid end-of-life deorbiting, automatic collision avoidance, and visors to reduce light pollution, even if these are not yet sufficient. Spacefaring countries, moreover, recognize that debris threatens all satellites, including military satellites. Some are strengthening their national regulations, including by incorporating non-binding international guidelines into binding national laws. However, there is little recognition that Earth’s orbit is a finite resource, the space and Earth environments are connected, and the actions of one actor can affect everyone. Until that changes, we risk multiple tragedies of the commons in space.
Just putting this Nature article here because I suspect some talking heads will try to use this to attack Starlink, even though Starlink comes through looking pretty good: Satellite mega‑constellations create risks in Low Earth Orbit, the atmosphere and on Earth (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7)QuoteThe rapid development of mega-constellations risks multiple tragedies of the commons, including tragedies to ground-based astronomy, Earth orbit, and Earth’s upper atmosphere. Moreover, the connections between the Earth and space environments are inadequately taken into account by the adoption of a consumer electronic model applied to space assets. For example, we point out that satellite re-entries from the Starlink mega-constellation alone could deposit more aluminum into Earth’s upper atmosphere than what is done through meteoroids; they could thus become the dominant source of high-altitude alumina. Using simple models, we also show that untracked debris will lead to potentially dangerous on-orbit collisions on a regular basis due to the large number of satellites within mega-constellation orbital shells. The total cross-section of satellites in these constellations also greatly increases the risk of impacts due to meteoroids. De facto orbit occupation by single actors, inadequate regulatory frameworks, and the possibility of free-riding exacerbate these risks. International cooperation is urgently needed, along with a regulatory system that takes into account the effects of tens of thousands of satellites.QuoteThere are reasons for hope. SpaceX is showing some leadership with rapid end-of-life deorbiting, automatic collision avoidance, and visors to reduce light pollution, even if these are not yet sufficient. Spacefaring countries, moreover, recognize that debris threatens all satellites, including military satellites. Some are strengthening their national regulations, including by incorporating non-binding international guidelines into binding national laws. However, there is little recognition that Earth’s orbit is a finite resource, the space and Earth environments are connected, and the actions of one actor can affect everyone. Until that changes, we risk multiple tragedies of the commons in space.
Just putting this Nature article here because I suspect some talking heads will try to use this to attack Starlink, even though Starlink comes through looking pretty good: Satellite mega‑constellations create risks in Low Earth Orbit, the atmosphere and on Earth (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7)QuoteThe rapid development of mega-constellations risks multiple tragedies of the commons, including tragedies to ground-based astronomy, Earth orbit, and Earth’s upper atmosphere. Moreover, the connections between the Earth and space environments are inadequately taken into account by the adoption of a consumer electronic model applied to space assets. For example, we point out that satellite re-entries from the Starlink mega-constellation alone could deposit more aluminum into Earth’s upper atmosphere than what is done through meteoroids; they could thus become the dominant source of high-altitude alumina. Using simple models, we also show that untracked debris will lead to potentially dangerous on-orbit collisions on a regular basis due to the large number of satellites within mega-constellation orbital shells. The total cross-section of satellites in these constellations also greatly increases the risk of impacts due to meteoroids. De facto orbit occupation by single actors, inadequate regulatory frameworks, and the possibility of free-riding exacerbate these risks. International cooperation is urgently needed, along with a regulatory system that takes into account the effects of tens of thousands of satellites.QuoteThere are reasons for hope. SpaceX is showing some leadership with rapid end-of-life deorbiting, automatic collision avoidance, and visors to reduce light pollution, even if these are not yet sufficient. Spacefaring countries, moreover, recognize that debris threatens all satellites, including military satellites. Some are strengthening their national regulations, including by incorporating non-binding international guidelines into binding national laws. However, there is little recognition that Earth’s orbit is a finite resource, the space and Earth environments are connected, and the actions of one actor can affect everyone. Until that changes, we risk multiple tragedies of the commons in space.
Don't solid rocket boosters deposit mega tonnes of Al in the upper atmosphere?
I like how the Twitter astro community's hyperbolic concern-trolling is now being weaponized by companies just for protecting their profits.
Indeed, some of the concerns are very real! But the whole argument of “the FCC broke the law by not requiring a lengthy environmental review that no other launches have had to do” comes from a particularly egregious concern-trolling article, not from those with legitimate & measured concerns.I like how the Twitter astro community's hyperbolic concern-trolling is now being weaponized by companies just for protecting their profits.
The astronomy community has some real concerns over the LEO constellations, and Viasat's (complaints/whining/whatever you want to call it) go far beyond what most in the astronomy community have complained about.
I like how the Twitter astro community's hyperbolic concern-trolling is now being weaponized by companies just for protecting their profits.
I like how the Twitter astro community's hyperbolic concern-trolling is now being weaponized by companies just for protecting their profits.
Worse, the higher orbit is much more damaging to astronomy than lower orbit, by preventing Starlink to lower its orbit, they're shooting themselves in the foot.
I like how the Twitter astro community's hyperbolic concern-trolling is now being weaponized by companies just for protecting their profits.
Worse, the higher orbit is much more damaging to astronomy than lower orbit, by preventing Starlink to lower its orbit, they're shooting themselves in the foot.
It's not the astronomy community that opposed lowering the orbits.
“Astronomers are having these issues [and think] there’s nothing they can do legally,” says the paper’s author Ramon Ryan, a second-year law student at Vanderbilt University. “[But] there is this law, the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA, pronounced ‘Nee-pah’], which requires federal agencies to take a hard look at their actions. The FCC’s lack of review of these commercial satellite projects violates [NEPA], so in the most basic sense, it would be unlawful.”
you have extreme reading comprehension problem.Just putting this Nature article here because I suspect some talking heads will try to use this to attack Starlink, even though Starlink comes through looking pretty good: Satellite mega‑constellations create risks in Low Earth Orbit, the atmosphere and on Earth (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7)QuoteThe rapid development of mega-constellations risks multiple tragedies of the commons, including tragedies to ground-based astronomy, Earth orbit, and Earth’s upper atmosphere. Moreover, the connections between the Earth and space environments are inadequately taken into account by the adoption of a consumer electronic model applied to space assets. For example, we point out that satellite re-entries from the Starlink mega-constellation alone could deposit more aluminum into Earth’s upper atmosphere than what is done through meteoroids; they could thus become the dominant source of high-altitude alumina. Using simple models, we also show that untracked debris will lead to potentially dangerous on-orbit collisions on a regular basis due to the large number of satellites within mega-constellation orbital shells. The total cross-section of satellites in these constellations also greatly increases the risk of impacts due to meteoroids. De facto orbit occupation by single actors, inadequate regulatory frameworks, and the possibility of free-riding exacerbate these risks. International cooperation is urgently needed, along with a regulatory system that takes into account the effects of tens of thousands of satellites.QuoteThere are reasons for hope. SpaceX is showing some leadership with rapid end-of-life deorbiting, automatic collision avoidance, and visors to reduce light pollution, even if these are not yet sufficient. Spacefaring countries, moreover, recognize that debris threatens all satellites, including military satellites. Some are strengthening their national regulations, including by incorporating non-binding international guidelines into binding national laws. However, there is little recognition that Earth’s orbit is a finite resource, the space and Earth environments are connected, and the actions of one actor can affect everyone. Until that changes, we risk multiple tragedies of the commons in space.
Don't solid rocket boosters deposit mega tonnes of Al in the upper atmosphere?
Short answer: no. Off my orders of magnitude (around a kiloton, i.e. one thousandth a megaton, is estimated to have *ever* been ejected, and a few tons remain).
Long answer: check Section 3.5 here: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F3-540-37674-7_3.pdf . Not sure what the relevance is: if SRMs are bad for the environment, other problems are not worth addressing?
you have extreme reading comprehension problem.Just putting this Nature article here because I suspect some talking heads will try to use this to attack Starlink, even though Starlink comes through looking pretty good: Satellite mega‑constellations create risks in Low Earth Orbit, the atmosphere and on Earth (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7)QuoteThe rapid development of mega-constellations risks multiple tragedies of the commons, including tragedies to ground-based astronomy, Earth orbit, and Earth’s upper atmosphere. Moreover, the connections between the Earth and space environments are inadequately taken into account by the adoption of a consumer electronic model applied to space assets. For example, we point out that satellite re-entries from the Starlink mega-constellation alone could deposit more aluminum into Earth’s upper atmosphere than what is done through meteoroids; they could thus become the dominant source of high-altitude alumina. Using simple models, we also show that untracked debris will lead to potentially dangerous on-orbit collisions on a regular basis due to the large number of satellites within mega-constellation orbital shells. The total cross-section of satellites in these constellations also greatly increases the risk of impacts due to meteoroids. De facto orbit occupation by single actors, inadequate regulatory frameworks, and the possibility of free-riding exacerbate these risks. International cooperation is urgently needed, along with a regulatory system that takes into account the effects of tens of thousands of satellites.QuoteThere are reasons for hope. SpaceX is showing some leadership with rapid end-of-life deorbiting, automatic collision avoidance, and visors to reduce light pollution, even if these are not yet sufficient. Spacefaring countries, moreover, recognize that debris threatens all satellites, including military satellites. Some are strengthening their national regulations, including by incorporating non-binding international guidelines into binding national laws. However, there is little recognition that Earth’s orbit is a finite resource, the space and Earth environments are connected, and the actions of one actor can affect everyone. Until that changes, we risk multiple tragedies of the commons in space.
Don't solid rocket boosters deposit mega tonnes of Al in the upper atmosphere?
Short answer: no. Off my orders of magnitude (around a kiloton, i.e. one thousandth a megaton, is estimated to have *ever* been ejected, and a few tons remain).
Long answer: check Section 3.5 here: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F3-540-37674-7_3.pdf . Not sure what the relevance is: if SRMs are bad for the environment, other problems are not worth addressing?
He is talking about alumina in high atmosphere (risk to ozon and blah, as usually in itself quite a subj to discuss), you are talking about alumina in free space.
Apples and carots.
ViaSat asks FCC to halt SpaceX Starlink launches because it can’t compete
Avatar
By Eric Ralph
Posted on May 25, 2021
Under the hollow pretense of concern for the environment, Starlink satellite internet competitor ViaSat has asked the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to force SpaceX to stop Starlink launches and threatened to take the matter to court if it doesn’t get its way.
Exactly 🤣🤣
The 70 degree shell will provide outstanding coverage at 70 degrees North, as all the 70 degree orbits overlap somewhat there. (And this effect will still be relevant down towards the 53 degree parallel.)
I think the minimum elevation allowed is 2225degrees, giving an extra 13.5 degrees of coverage about 890 miles, and of course more risk of obstruction etc. reaching to 6.5 degrees from the poles!
Therefore Alaska will be perfectly covered. Prudhoe Bay on the North coast, is 70 degrees N.
This will meet and exceed the intention to provide broadband to remote communities ... in this case to so many places which cannot be reached by road, let alone fibre!!!!
In the South it will give outstanding coverage to all the Antarctic research stations, and also southern Chile and Argentina. How wonderful to be able to live in the Chilean archipelago and have outstanding internet!
Edit 22 degrees - the other figures are based on this.
Edit 22 degrees - the other figures are based on this.
The massive launch of satellites into low orbit by the American SpaceX for its Starlink constellation created a "risk of de facto monopolization" of space which undermines the sustainability of its operation, denounced the head of Arianespace Stéphane Israël.
...
I got it from the Wikipedia page - however checking it again it says - as you say -25 degrees! I don't know how I could have misread it, but I must have!Edit 22 degrees - the other figures are based on this.
Where did you get 22 degrees? The FCC authorization is for 25 degrees, and the corresponding ITU filing has 25 as well as 18.
I think the minimum elevation allowed isI get a coverage area with a 8.7 degree radius or 968 km (~605 miles) radius. That's at 570 km altitude.2225(final) CORRECTION it IS 25 degrees, giving an extra 13.5 degrees of coverage about 890 miles, and of course more risk of obstruction etc. reaching to 6.5 degrees from the poles!
I think the minimum elevation allowed isI get a coverage area with a 8.7 degree radius or 968 km (~605 miles) radius. That's at 570 km altitude.2225(final) CORRECTION it IS 25 degrees, giving an extra 13.5 degrees of coverage about 890 miles, and of course more risk of obstruction etc. reaching to 6.5 degrees from the poles!
So a satellite in a 70 degree inclination orbit would be usable at a 25 degree elevation at a maximum latitude of 78.7 degrees north/south.
But it's a bit of an open question exactly how usable it would be at that latitude. You would really only see at most one satellite at a time, peaking at 25.X degrees elevation before going back down again. To consistently see multiple satellites, you would need to be a bit closer to 70 degrees.
As SpaceX’s considerable advantages become more apparent Europe and others will complain.SpaceX employs a LOT more people than they did before they perfected reuse for Falcon 9. SpaceX has just expanded what they do in space.
However, SpaceX is going down a fresh path. Anyone complaining about SpaceX is free to follow or even improve upon them.
I love watching the F9 and Starlink symbiotic relationship. Each makes the other more affordable.
Elon created the launch need to make their reuseable rockets viable.
Europe could do the same, but they have so many jobs in so many countries to maintain.
But it's a bit of an open question exactly how usable it would be at that latitude.
They're starting with 70 degrees from Vandenberg
They're starting with 70 degrees from Vandenberg
Do we know they are starting with 70 degrees? I missed that in the docs...
And Longyearbyen is at 78 degrees latitude. That should get pretty good signal if there are enough satellites placed at 70 degrees and 550km. At least if you put your terminal on that hill behind the town.But it's a bit of an open question exactly how usable it would be at that latitude.
However, very few people live at that high a latitude - I think the only real town (as opposed to research stations, bases, etc.) is Longyearbyen in Svalbard.
Even in Scandinavia, Russia, and Canada, nearly all settlements are south of 72N.
Qaanaaq, in W Greenland/@77.467N (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Qaanaaq,+Greenland[/url)And Longyearbyen is at 78 degrees latitude. That should get pretty good signal if there are enough satellites placed at 70 degrees and 550km. At least if you put your terminal on that hill behind the town.But it's a bit of an open question exactly how usable it would be at that latitude.
However, very few people live at that high a latitude - I think the only real town (as opposed to research stations, bases, etc.) is Longyearbyen in Svalbard.
Even in Scandinavia, Russia, and Canada, nearly all settlements are south of 72N.
Yes I had errors! Now correct I think.The satellite altitude is 570 km, not 570 miles. (Things are always easier if you just go metric...)
I'm now certain its 10.9 degrees... x 66 M/deg = 720Miles ... after recalculating using 25 degrees. Earth rad = 3963 miles.
everyone seems to be forgetting that starlink has a restriction that no emissions from the ground can point towards the equatorial geosync satellites so ground terminats need satellites in orbits more polar than their latitudesI get that GEO would be at 11.5 degrees elevation at 70 degree latitude, so it should be fine to communicate with the Starlink satellites at 25+ degrees elevation.
DAMN I am an idiot!Yes I had errors! Now correct I think.The satellite altitude is 570 km, not 570 miles. (Things are always easier if you just go metric...)
I'm now certain its 10.9 degrees... x 66 M/deg = 720Miles ... after recalculating using 25 degrees. Earth rad = 3963 miles.
22 degrees is a common dish offset. That might have been why it popped up in your head.I got it from the Wikipedia page - however checking it again it says - as you say -25 degrees! I don't know how I could have misread it, but I must have!Edit 22 degrees - the other figures are based on this.
Where did you get 22 degrees? The FCC authorization is for 25 degrees, and the corresponding ITU filing has 25 as well as 18.
Editing my post again! Thankyou.
User terminals will only operate 25 degrees+, but gateways will operate at 5 degrees+ in polar orbits. So that might provide service to certain arctic outposts even with the 70 degree inclination birds, if someone doesn't want to wait until next year.
As for service to planes, what is the path they take over the arctic?
User terminals will only operate 25 degrees+, but gateways will operate at 5 degrees+ in polar orbits. So that might provide service to certain arctic outposts even with the 70 degree inclination birds, if someone doesn't want to wait until next year.
As for service to planes, what is the path they take over the arctic?
Depends on the flight. I’ve been on a plane from Dubai to San Francisco which flew pretty much directly over the pole.
As for service to planes, what is the path they take over the arctic?Just some examples of polar and near polar routes:
As for service to planes, what is the path they take over the arctic?Just some examples of polar and near polar routes:
- US west coast - Middle East
- US east coast - China/Japan/Singapore
- Western Europe - Japan
- Australia - South America
- Australia - South Africa
I don't think the southern routes (Australia - South America / South Africa) go anywhere near as far south as the great circle routes. This is because there are no diversion airports on Antarctica, and aircraft have to fly within a regulated flying time (180, 240, 270 or 330 minutes, depending on the aircraft, with one engine out at 10,000 feet altitude) of an airport at which they can safely landAs for service to planes, what is the path they take over the arctic?Just some examples of polar and near polar routes:
- US west coast - Middle East
- US east coast - China/Japan/Singapore
- Western Europe - Japan
- Australia - South America
- Australia - South Africa
I don't think the southern routes (Australia - South America / South Africa) go anywhere near as far south as the great circle routes. This is because there are no diversion airports on Antarctica, and aircraft have to fly within a regulated flying time (180, 240, 270 or 330 minutes, depending on the aircraft, with one engine out at 10,000 feet altitude) of an airport at which they can safely land
Flights between Australia and South America and between Australia and South Africa pass near the Antarctic coastline. Depending on the winds, the Qantas flight QFA63 from Sydney to Johannesburg – O. R. Tambo, or the return flight QFA64, sometimes flies over the Antarctic Circle to 71° latitude as well and allowing views of the icecap.[19][better source needed] Qantas QFA27 and QFA28 fly nonstop between Sydney and Santiago de Chile, the most southerly polar route. Depending on winds, this flight may reach 55° south latitude.
OneWeb should be available at high latitudes before Starlink.Unfortunately for the airlines is that without access to an Internet ground/undersea cable in the Antarctic, OneWeb suffers from the same problem as Starlink without ISL. Although OneWeb at higher orbit has a longer reach away from it's "Gateway", ~double that of Starlink.
Last week, both Dish Network Corp. and Viasat filed appeals with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asking that the approval order be deemed unlawful and set aside.
Courts usually give the FCC broad discretion in its decision-making, added the former official, who did not wish to be named. But that pattern may not hold in this case, especially given Viasat's invocation of NEPA — an act that the FCC hasn't had to deal with all that much to date.
Generally speaking, the courts "like NEPA and have given it a lot of leeway over the years," the former official said. "It's become a very important part of the government process, both in terms of regulation and also for government contracting."
The D.C. appeals court will likely decide in the next few weeks whether to issue a hold on Starlink launches, this person added. And a denial of the appeals would probably not be the last word on the issue.
Invoking NEPA is a two edged sword. It would be impossible to state legally that because a satellite launch occurs 20 times vs a single time that they can be subject to NEPA and the 1 case doesn't have to be. Either it applies equally to all or not at all. So if Starlink is halted then all US launches will be halted. Until each launch complies completely with NEPA strict interpretation.
Which is why every agency and court ruling so far has went against Viasat and associates due to be inimical to the interests and well being of the US. They are attempting to get the courts to apply an US EPA law into international territory (outer space). Just because stuff can "wash up" on the US shores.Invoking NEPA is a two edged sword. It would be impossible to state legally that because a satellite launch occurs 20 times vs a single time that they can be subject to NEPA and the 1 case doesn't have to be. Either it applies equally to all or not at all. So if Starlink is halted then all US launches will be halted. Until each launch complies completely with NEPA strict interpretation.
That would likely prompt immediate congressional intervention.
Which is why every agency and court ruling so far has went against Viasat and associates due to be inimical to the interests and well being of the US. They are attempting to get the courts to apply an US EPA law into international territory (outer space). Just because stuff can "wash up" on the US shores.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp.'s (SpaceX) has filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for testing a new variant of its user terminal for the company's Starlink satellite internet constellation. The application was filed with the Commission's Office of Experimental Testing (OET) yesterday, and it lists down different specifications for the terminal's receiving antenna when compared against SpaceX's previous filings. The Starlink terminals are used by users to connect with the orbiting satellites, which then relay the data to one of the many ground stations scattered all over the continental United States.
Not sure what this is about: New Starlink User Dish With Smaller Antenna Pops Up In FCC Filing (https://wccftech.com/new-starlink-user-dish-with-smaller-antenna-pops-up-in-fcc-filing/)QuoteSpace Exploration Technologies Corp.'s (SpaceX) has filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for testing a new variant of its user terminal for the company's Starlink satellite internet constellation. The application was filed with the Commission's Office of Experimental Testing (OET) yesterday, and it lists down different specifications for the terminal's receiving antenna when compared against SpaceX's previous filings. The Starlink terminals are used by users to connect with the orbiting satellites, which then relay the data to one of the many ground stations scattered all over the continental United States.
Starlink faces opposition from Amazon's Kuiper satellite service in another FCC proceeding. This sets out to unify the buildout periods of satellites and their ground stations, with the Commission aiming to reduce bureaucratic burdens imposed by separate application processing for the two.
SpaceX opposes this unification, arguing that it will allow operators to reserve ground station locations for years and deprive companies capable of operating them immediately of a valuable resource. On the other hand, Amazon argues that SpaceX's petition for reconsideration is procedurally flawed as it does not bring any new facts to light. Therefore, Amazon believes that the FCC should reject SpaceX's arguments and unify processing for satellite and ground stations.
In a meeting with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) representatives earlier this month, members of Microsoft Corporation shared their support for Space Exploration Technologies Corp.'s (SpaceX) Starlink satellite internet network. Starlink and other non-geostationary fixed-satellite services (NGSO FSS) providers are at odds with terrestrial 5G operators such as Michael Dell's RS Access LLC and dish-based service (DBS) providers such as DBS over rules for governing the 12GHz spectrum. The FCC is currently evaluating input from all stakeholders in the spectrum to accommodate demand from all sides. Microsoft's meeting came after it submitted detailed comments in support of the satellite companies early last month.
Within a week of seeking the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) permission to test a new Starlink user terminal, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) has filed another application (first spotted by PCMag!)with the regulatory body. This application is similar to the one it filed in 2019, and it asks the FCC to grant SpaceX the authority to operate one million new Starlink consumer dishes in the U.S. These new dishes will feature a smaller antenna, a lower power output and will actively search for and communicate with the orbiting satellites for a longer time.
The above makes sense due to the FCC approval to allow all Ku operating sats to be at 550km vs 1100km. The dish does not need as much gain and also does not need the finer beam width. The sat spacing at 1100km vs at 550km is only 1.08X greater distance apart. So likely this will become, if the testing goes really well, the mass production Dishy. A 2" reduction doesn't sound like much (actual 15% size reduction). But for many installations can mean it fits vs it doesn't.
The primary cost of a phased array is the number of elements not the diameter. Elements spread is a separate item and can be practically any value. NOTE is that the antenna gain is also related to number of elements used. So reduction of diameter while still having the same number of elements has the least effect on antenna gain. But gain loss is still occurring just due to physics from the lower diameter and wider beam width.The above makes sense due to the FCC approval to allow all Ku operating sats to be at 550km vs 1100km. The dish does not need as much gain and also does not need the finer beam width. The sat spacing at 1100km vs at 550km is only 1.08X greater distance apart. So likely this will become, if the testing goes really well, the mass production Dishy. A 2" reduction doesn't sound like much (actual 15% size reduction). But for many installations can mean it fits vs it doesn't.
I’m not an RF guy or know all that much about phased arrays, but would this also reduce the cost of Dishy by 15%
Is it possible that they lowered the satellites to 550 km to help reduce the cost of the user antenna?
The California-based communications company Viasat, which operates a rival satellite Internet service, submitted a filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asking for a reassessment of the FCC’s licensing of some Starlink satellites. While the filing only relates to a recent modification to lower the planned altitudes of about 3,000 Starlink satellites, the case could set a precedent that will force the agency to consider any future satellite licenses’ impact on the night sky. “I think the FCC is very vulnerable,” says a former FCC official. “I don’t think they have the documentation to explain to a court why NEPA doesn’t apply.”
“There’s a nontrivial chance this could go to the Supreme Court,” says Kevin Bell of the nonprofit organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Given that the U.S.’s highest court is conservative-leaning, thanks to Donald Trump’s appointees, and thus generally supportive of restricting NEPA, that scenario could favor the FCC, Bell says. The FCC declined a request to comment on the ongoing litigation.
“The emergence of these large constellations is a fundamental step change in how we use space,” says Brian Weeden of the Secure World Foundation, a nonprofit organization that promotes space sustainability. “Even if the court rules and says NEPA does apply to the night sky, that’s just the beginning.”
I think where Viasat will get cut off at the knees is at the difference in what NEPA is about. And that is that NEPA is about those things that can directly or significant indirectly affect the natural world. But as in pinpoint moving light objects fainter than almost most stars. Whose effects would be on the animal kingdom or on normal day to day activity of humans is extremely questionable. Note here is the almost monthly meteor showers create far more light disturbances in the night sky. Further the using the effect on astronomers as the reasoning is way off. Astronomers are not the natural world. Their adverse effects that they may have from satellites are with the use of artificial equipment.
Basically applying NEPA would be equivalent to stretching the law way beyond it's original meaning. The reactions that so many have about this is almost totally hype.
But here is the gotcha if for some reason that NEPA does get applied to satellites on orbit operation. And that is that before a satellite is launch you have to have an EIS and an Approval for the operation of that satellite on orbit. So suddenly by order of the court no more launches are allowed until each has done their EIS and gotten it approved which may take a year or several years.
If that does happen then Viasat would have just shot themselves in their own both feet. And would likely put themselves into bankruptcy.I think where Viasat will get cut off at the knees is at the difference in what NEPA is about. And that is that NEPA is about those things that can directly or significant indirectly affect the natural world. But as in pinpoint moving light objects fainter than almost most stars. Whose effects would be on the animal kingdom or on normal day to day activity of humans is extremely questionable. Note here is the almost monthly meteor showers create far more light disturbances in the night sky. Further the using the effect on astronomers as the reasoning is way off. Astronomers are not the natural world. Their adverse effects that they may have from satellites are with the use of artificial equipment.
Basically applying NEPA would be equivalent to stretching the law way beyond it's original meaning. The reactions that so many have about this is almost totally hype.
But here is the gotcha if for some reason that NEPA does get applied to satellites on orbit operation. And that is that before a satellite is launch you have to have an EIS and an Approval for the operation of that satellite on orbit. So suddenly by order of the court no more launches are allowed until each has done their EIS and gotten it approved which may take a year or several years.
Following that line of thought, would that then back apply to all US on-orbit spacecraft? As in all commercial operators must stop commercial ops and submit EIS for current on-orbit assets? NASA too (ISS is big and shiny)? Is the military completely free and clear, even with that interpretation?
If that does happen then Viasat would have just shot themselves in their own both feet. And would likely put themselves into bankruptcy.I think where Viasat will get cut off at the knees is at the difference in what NEPA is about. And that is that NEPA is about those things that can directly or significant indirectly affect the natural world. But as in pinpoint moving light objects fainter than almost most stars. Whose effects would be on the animal kingdom or on normal day to day activity of humans is extremely questionable. Note here is the almost monthly meteor showers create far more light disturbances in the night sky. Further the using the effect on astronomers as the reasoning is way off. Astronomers are not the natural world. Their adverse effects that they may have from satellites are with the use of artificial equipment.
Basically applying NEPA would be equivalent to stretching the law way beyond it's original meaning. The reactions that so many have about this is almost totally hype.
But here is the gotcha if for some reason that NEPA does get applied to satellites on orbit operation. And that is that before a satellite is launch you have to have an EIS and an Approval for the operation of that satellite on orbit. So suddenly by order of the court no more launches are allowed until each has done their EIS and gotten it approved which may take a year or several years.
Following that line of thought, would that then back apply to all US on-orbit spacecraft? As in all commercial operators must stop commercial ops and submit EIS for current on-orbit assets? NASA too (ISS is big and shiny)? Is the military completely free and clear, even with that interpretation?
But more likely it would not affect existing, but even more likely not get a ruling for it in the first place by the courts.
If Viasat wins, I would expect SpaceX to ignore the verdict and launch anyway. Then pay the fine. Would be less costly than delaying Starlink.
Haven't read these yet, but I believe these are the filings for this lawsuit:
FCC's opposition to Viasat's motion for stay pending judical review: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-373276A1.pdf
SpaceX's opposition to motion for stay pending judicial review: https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/06/16/spacex__opposition_to_stay_motion_dc_circuit.pdf
Viasat has not justified a need for the extraordinary remedy of a stay. As we show, Viasat has failed to demonstrate (1) a “strong showing” that it will “likely” prevail on the merits, (2) it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay, (3) a stay will not harm other parties, and (4) a stay will serve the public interest. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). The Commission found significant public interest benefits to SpaceX’s proposed modification, particularly in expanding broadband service to underserved and rural areas and in mitigating orbital debris risks. And after examining Viasat’s environmental objections in detail, the agency reasonably concluded that they did not warrant the preparation of a NEPA environmental assessment.
Viasat’s claimed injuries if a stay were not granted are speculative and insubstantial, and could be remedied if Viasat prevails on appeal. On the other hand, the grant of a stay would upend SpaceX’s deployment, and harm the public interest in advancing satellite broadband services to remote and underserved areas.
...
“For efficiency,” NEPA requires agencies to identify “categories of actions that normally do not have a significant effect on the human environment” and do not require further review. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(a). Such “[c]ategorical exclusions are not exemptions or waivers of NEPA review; they are simply one type of NEPA review.” United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. FCC, 933 F.3d 728, 735 (D.C. Cir. 2019). For non-excluded actions, the agency determines whether to prepare an “environmental assessment” for actions that may have a significant effect, or an “environmental impact statement” for actions that are likely to have a significant effect. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.3(a)(1)-(3). When a categorical exclusion applies, further review may be necessary if there exist “extraordinary circumstances” in which “a normally excluded action may have a significant effect.” Id. § 1501.4.
...
If Viasat wins, the most likely outcome IMO is that SpaceX immediately gets a stay on the ruling and appeals, and by the time the case makes it through the legal system, either Congress will have legislated a solution, or the FCC will come up with some better justifications for the categorical exclusion.
Musk has violated court orders before. Like the whole Twitter thing.If Viasat wins, I would expect SpaceX to ignore the verdict and launch anyway. Then pay the fine. Would be less costly than delaying Starlink.
Absolutely not. Willfully ignoring court orders is a great way to get your entire executive team held in contempt of court and have all future launch licenses cancelled. SpaceX is smarter than that.
If Viasat wins, the most likely outcome IMO is that SpaceX immediately gets a stay on the ruling and appeals, and by the time the case makes it through the legal system, either Congress will have legislated a solution, or the FCC will come up with some better justifications for the categorical exclusion.
Musk has violated court orders before. Like the whole Twitter thing.If Viasat wins, I would expect SpaceX to ignore the verdict and launch anyway. Then pay the fine. Would be less costly than delaying Starlink.
Absolutely not. Willfully ignoring court orders is a great way to get your entire executive team held in contempt of court and have all future launch licenses cancelled. SpaceX is smarter than that.
If Viasat wins, the most likely outcome IMO is that SpaceX immediately gets a stay on the ruling and appeals, and by the time the case makes it through the legal system, either Congress will have legislated a solution, or the FCC will come up with some better justifications for the categorical exclusion.
Another possibility is that SpaceX will just buy out Viasat and bury the whole thing.
And I don't think buying out competitor is SpaceX (or Tesla)'s MO. Besides, if Viasat does win the pandora's box would have been opened, even if you take out Viasat someone else will use the same tactic. In this case I think the best course of action would be just to do the Environmental Assessment, it shouldn't take long since the reason it's not needed in the first place is because there's no impact, so they can just check the boxes very quickly. As I mentioned earlier, if I were SpaceX I would try to get the Environmental Assessment prepared in secret just in case.
I believe you mean the FCC.And I don't think buying out competitor is SpaceX (or Tesla)'s MO. Besides, if Viasat does win the pandora's box would have been opened, even if you take out Viasat someone else will use the same tactic. In this case I think the best course of action would be just to do the Environmental Assessment, it shouldn't take long since the reason it's not needed in the first place is because there's no impact, so they can just check the boxes very quickly. As I mentioned earlier, if I were SpaceX I would try to get the Environmental Assessment prepared in secret just in case.
From the FAA Response, the bolded has already been done. Doing what Viasat asks would just gum up the works and open up new avenues of obstruction.
I believe you mean the FCC.
...
For other purpose sats or space vehicles different agencies may be the lead for their on orbit/trajectory/mission. Even the FAA sometimes is the lead. Congress set of laws over the years has made a mess of who is responsible for what in order to get an approval. Sometimes it is not obvious at all.
Take the degenerate case of launching a brick (no RF, no FCC involvement). Would still be required to be reviewed and approved as part of the FAA launch license process to include payload review; hazard analysis; disposal; etc. And may involve review-approval by other agencies, such as State and DoD.
End PSA; back to your regular program.
Not entirely true. FCC is responsible for ODAR (orbital debris assessments) for US payloads.
The Notice recognized the importance of a coordinated, effective regulatory environment that meets the dual goals of orbital debris mitigation and furthering U.S. space commerce.62 Specifically, in the Notice, the Commission sought comment on whether there are any areas in which the proposed requirements overlap with requirements clearly within the authority of other agencies, in order to avoid duplicative activities, and whether there are any exceptions to applications of our rules that would be appropriate in specific circumstances.63 The Notice also highlighted the ongoing activities of various executive branch agencies of the U.S. government related to the Space Policy Directive-3 (SPD-3)...So no, FCC does not have final say on ODAR. FAA, as issuer of launch license has final say.
Musk has violated court orders before. Like the whole Twitter thing.Apart from the "you don't violate a court order" there is the fact that a F9 launch requires support from US Gov actors. I absolutely guarantee that the 45th will not authorize or support a launch where not all the is are dotted and the ts are crossed.
Another possibility is that SpaceX will just buy out Viasat and bury the whole thing.
Starlink, the satellite internet unit of Elon Musk's SpaceX, expects to be able to provide continuous global coverage by around September but will then need to seek regulatory approvals, its president Gwynne Shotwel said on Tuesday.
"We've successfully deployed 1,800 or so satellites and once all those satellites reach their operational orbit, we will have continuous global coverage, so that should be like September timeframe," she told a Macquarie Group (MQG.AX) technology conference via webcast.
"But then we have regulatory work to go into every country and get approved to provide telecoms services."
we will have continuous global coverage, so that should be like September timeframeDo I understand correctly that we are talking about a part of the globe between 55 parallels?
we will have continuous global coverage, so that should be like September timeframeDo I understand correctly that we are talking about a part of the globe between 55 parallels?
I've been asked lots of questions recently about the decay of orbital debris. So, here's a handy infographic to slake your curiosity.
Good chart. This is a major reason why we moved Starlink from ~1100km orbit to ~550km. Atmosphere automatically clears the lower altitude within a few years, so space junk cannot accumulate.
Any thoughts on Starlink IPO we would love to invest in the future. Any thoughts on first dibs for Tesla retail investors ?
At least a few years before Starlink revenue is reasonably predictable. Going public sooner than that would be very painful. Will do my best to give long-term Tesla shareholders preference.
I would think that future satellites for Starlink launch might also become more massive as they try to prolong their lifetimes - increases in redundancies, propellant and solar cell capacities (for EoL power reasons) might allow, say, a 10-year lifetime instead of 5.
Replacing many thousands of satellites every 10 years is likely to sound better for their investors than doing it every 5.
(Replying to a message in the "Launching Starlink with Starship" thread)I would think that future satellites for Starlink launch might also become more massive as they try to prolong their lifetimes - increases in redundancies, propellant and solar cell capacities (for EoL power reasons) might allow, say, a 10-year lifetime instead of 5.
Replacing many thousands of satellites every 10 years is likely to sound better for their investors than doing it every 5.
I don't think so. The reason they are aiming for a lifetime of 5 years is specifically to save money.
I don't think so. The reason they are aiming for a lifetime of 5 years is specifically to save money.
But also due to obsolescence. Bandwith demand grows so fast they need to keep improving capacity. Didn't they say they may replace the present generation even earlier than 5 years from now?
(Replying to a message in the "Launching Starlink with Starship" thread)
I don't think so. The reason they are aiming for a lifetime of 5 years is specifically to save money. Building communications equipment with enough capacity (bandwidth) that it will be useful 10 years into the future, tends to be fairly expensive. No-one sane buys e.g. a datacenter Ethernet switch with the expectation to run it for 10 years. It is much cheaper to buy one that will just last you 5 years, and replace it then. Similarly for Internet backbone routers (although I think the cutoff there is more like 7 years). As launch gets cheaper, that effect will just become more pronounced. The reason for having long lifetimes is just that the act of physically replacing it (i.e. the launch cost) has been so hideously high.
Satellites in geosynchronous orbit have it a bit easier, though. You can build the satellite to have enough capacity for five years in the most demanding position, and then move it to somewhere where the market only have yesteryear's bandwidth demands. In the old spot, where bandwidth demands are higher, you send up a brand new satellite. But satellites for LEO constellations don't have that luxury; there are no such low-bandwidth spots that a satellite can move to, since they constantly move all over the globe.
Starlink simultaneously active users just exceeded the strategically important threshold of 69,420 last night!
All 72 orbital planes activate in August, plus many other improvements, enabling global coverage, except for polar regions, which will take another 6 months
Airline wifi when?
Schedule driver there is regulatory approval. Has to be certified for each aircraft type. Focusing on 737 & A320, as those serve most number of people, with development testing on Gulfstream.
On the ground, yes that argument is a strong one, as new data handling equipment comes along that is constantly able to push more data down a wire or fibre.
However, the theoretical capacity of those links (particularly fibre) is huge, while the radio spectra Starlink has (or will have) access to is much more limited. Of course there will always be improvements that allow more data to be squeezed into that bandwidth, but the potential for growth is much more constrained. Physically larger antennas, more power etc... of course still applies, and that is a valid argument for a limited life.
Clearly they are following the max 5-year life for now, and I would agree that is with with good reason - they know their current satellites are limited and may not meet their future plans.
The satellites are not capable of handling the E or V bands that they wish to use in future, so they will want to improve the next generation (my guess is the V.2 satellites will have this capability).
However, beyond that, it is possible they will build a satellite that can handle any of the bands they have access to, and be capable of handling data throughput rates that are limited by the licenced spectrum available to them, rather than by the technology on board.
At that point, long life may become of greater value.
(Replying to a message in the "Launching Starlink with Starship" thread)"Move where"? "Move how"? The fuel load of GEO bird is >.5 of total payload mass (if electric). It is 3x times if chemical. They need it for orbit correction ("keeping") and for the acceleration to the graveyard orbit(small but still substantial bit). Guys, if the orbital physics is too difficult, at least play a bit of kerbal before commenting...I would think that future satellites for Starlink launch might also become more massive as they try to prolong their lifetimes - increases in redundancies, propellant and solar cell capacities (for EoL power reasons) might allow, say, a 10-year lifetime instead of 5.
Replacing many thousands of satellites every 10 years is likely to sound better for their investors than doing it every 5.
I don't think so. The reason they are aiming for a lifetime of 5 years is specifically to save money. Building communications equipment with enough capacity (bandwidth) that it will be useful 10 years into the future, tends to be fairly expensive. No-one sane buys e.g. a datacenter Ethernet switch with the expectation to run it for 10 years. It is much cheaper to buy one that will just last you 5 years, and replace it then. Similarly for Internet backbone routers (although I think the cutoff there is more like 7 years). As launch gets cheaper, that effect will just become more pronounced. The reason for having long lifetimes is just that the act of physically replacing it (i.e. the launch cost) has been so hideously high.
Satellites in geosynchronous orbit have it a bit easier, though. You can build the satellite to have enough capacity for five years in the most demanding position, and then move it to somewhere where the market only have yesteryear's bandwidth demands. In the old spot, where bandwidth demands are higher, you send up a brand new satellite. But satellites for LEO constellations don't have that luxury; there are no such low-bandwidth spots that a satellite can move to, since they constantly move all over the globe.
"Move where"? "Move how"? The fuel load of GEO bird is >.5 of total payload mass (if electric). It is 3x times if chemical. They need it for orbit correction ("keeping") and for the acceleration to the graveyard orbit(small but still substantial bit). Guys, if the orbital physics is too difficult, at least play a bit of kerbal before commenting...
I have no idea how often this is actually done, but the delta-v required to move from one slot in GEO to another is minimal. Use 5 m/s to raise your orbit, drift for a few weeks, and lower yourself back down.
It would prioritize building what lawmakers are calling “future proof” networks, requiring in most instances for the new networks to support upload and download speeds of at least 100 Mbps, to ensure they do not quickly become outdated.
Bipartisan group of senators introduces $40 billion bill to close the digital divide (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/15/digital-divide-bridge-act-senate/)QuoteIt would prioritize building what lawmakers are calling “future proof” networks, requiring in most instances for the new networks to support upload and download speeds of at least 100 Mbps, to ensure they do not quickly become outdated.
This new obsession with symmetric upload/download speed is strange, I have fiber and my download is consistently 10x more than my upload. I'm not sure there is a customer related rational for requiring this, I wonder if this is a new roadblock specifically setup to exclude fixed wireless and satellite constellations. Given this, is there any technical reason LEO constellation in general and Starlink in particular couldn't support symmetric upload/download speed?
Bipartisan group of senators introduces $40 billion bill to close the digital divide (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/15/digital-divide-bridge-act-senate/)QuoteIt would prioritize building what lawmakers are calling “future proof” networks, requiring in most instances for the new networks to support upload and download speeds of at least 100 Mbps, to ensure they do not quickly become outdated.
This new obsession with symmetric upload/download speed is strange, I have fiber and my download is consistently 10x more than my upload. I'm not sure there is a customer related rational for requiring this, I wonder if this is a new roadblock specifically setup to exclude fixed wireless and satellite constellations. Given this, is there any technical reason LEO constellation in general and Starlink in particular couldn't support symmetric upload/download speed?
Symmetric is very useful for several consumer use cases: cloud backups, streaming (on Twitch for example), running a small business out of the home, having good video on your Zoom calls, etc. Most current providers will charge you through the nose for a "Business" plan that is symmetric, whereas this requirement would make symmetric the default.
Can't speak to technical reasons why Starlink may or may not support symmetric up/down, but to my layman's perspective, I don't see any obvious roadblocks.
Elon Musk is speaking virtually at #MWC21 as SpaceX CEO. Livestream: mobileworldlive.com
Thread:
Musk: ""You can think of Starlink as filling in the gaps between 5G and fiber, and really getting to the parts of the world that are the hardest to reach."
Musk: "Starting in August we should have global connectivity for everywhere except the [North and South] poles."
"We are on our way to having a few hundred thousands users, possibly over 500,000 users within 12 months."
Musk: Starlink is "operational now in about 12 countries, and more are being added every month."
Musk: "From a technology standpoint, Starlink is quite different from prior LEO constellations ... [it's] very advanced."
"No one has this level of sophistication with phased array technology" for satellite antennas.
Musk: "We're getting close to launching [Starlink] satellite [version] 1.5, which has" satellite interlinks.
Musk: "Probably, before we go into fully positive cash flow, [SpaceX may have spent] at least $5 billion [on Starlink], and maybe as much as $10 [billion]. It's quite a lot."
Musk: "Over time it's going to be a multiple of that and, about $20 or $30 billion over time, because basically it is a lot of money" to get Starlink operational.
Musk notes that SpaceX is still "losing money" on the Starlink terminal, which costs more than $1,000 each currently.
"We're working on next generation terminals that provide the same level of capability, roughly same level capability, but it costs a lot less."
Musk says Starlink has "two quite significant partnerships with major country telcos" but declines to name them, saying SpaceX defers to its partners on announcements.
Bipartisan group of senators introduces $40 billion bill to close the digital divide (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/15/digital-divide-bridge-act-senate/)QuoteIt would prioritize building what lawmakers are calling “future proof” networks, requiring in most instances for the new networks to support upload and download speeds of at least 100 Mbps, to ensure they do not quickly become outdated.
This new obsession with symmetric upload/download speed is strange, I have fiber and my download is consistently 10x more than my upload. I'm not sure there is a customer related rational for requiring this, I wonder if this is a new roadblock specifically setup to exclude fixed wireless and satellite constellations. Given this, is there any technical reason LEO constellation in general and Starlink in particular couldn't support symmetric upload/download speed?
Symmetric is very useful for several consumer use cases: cloud backups, streaming (on Twitch for example), running a small business out of the home, having good video on your Zoom calls, etc. Most current providers will charge you through the nose for a "Business" plan that is symmetric, whereas this requirement would make symmetric the default.
Can't speak to technical reasons why Starlink may or may not support symmetric up/down, but to my layman's perspective, I don't see any obvious roadblocks.
QuoteMusk: "We're getting close to launching [Starlink] satellite [version] 1.5, which has" satellite interlinks.
“We’re getting close to launching satellite 1.5, which has laser inter-satellite links, and that’ll be used especially for continuous connectivity over the Arctic and Antarctic regions,” Musk said. “Next year we’ll start launching version two of our satellite, which will be significantly more capable.”
A while ago Musk stated that V2 was to launch on Starship where the V1's launched on F9. So there is more to the statement than just about an improved version but a larger one that launches next year on Starship.
“Next year we’ll start launching version two of our satellite, which will be significantly more capable.”
In addition, SpaceX reached a Space Act Agreement with NASA and its Conjunction Assessment and Risk Analysis (CARA) program. Consistent with that agreement, NASA and CARA have agreed in principle to conduct a formal evaluation of all or a representative set of the “events” involving SpaceX satellites in the past six months, all of which have been described in this report, as well as the efficacy of SpaceX’s autonomous collision avoidance system during those events in which a SpaceX maneuver was required.
Semi-annual constellation status report to FCC: https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=10375428
New SpaceX Starlink cover shows transfer orbit from Earth to Mars
Is this a reveal of a new generation McSquareface antenna? It’s not a shipping box.
Is this a reveal of a new generation McSquareface antenna? It’s not a shipping box.
Or router?
Is this a reveal of a new generation McSquareface antenna? It’s not a shipping box.
Or router?
There seems to be a footprint-ish smudge on the ground behind the panel on the left side. If that is in fact a footprint, then this is a pretty large object, definitely not router-sized. Or it could just be a smudge (or a render).
Well, this is pure speculation, but I think "more capable" could mean direct communication with cell phones. I believe this would require larger more powerful satellites with larger antenna. So yes best suited to be launched on Starship.A while ago Musk stated that V2 was to launch on Starship where the V1's launched on F9. So there is more to the statement than just about an improved version but a larger one that launches next year on Starship.Might not be larger. Could have upgraded components instead. Musk's use of the phase "more capable" is ambiguous.Quote from: Musk“Next year we’ll start launching version two of our satellite, which will be significantly more capable.”
Well, this is pure speculation, but I think "more capable" could mean direct communication with cell phones.Cell phones use 800-900 and 1800 MHz frequencies
"More Capable" probably means inter satellite commsMusk also stated the prior to the V2 sats the start of the deployment of the V1.5 (V1 sats with ISL) and discontinuous of deployment of sats without it would start soon as in late this year or very early next year. It will probably take a while before existing v1.0 sats are replaced though. Will have to watch the sat payload deploy video for evidence of the attached ISL's. I have been watching for it already. It should be easily identifiable if not actually published by SpaceX prior to launch of the fact that the sat load is ISL capable. The V2 sats are likely to be more capable than the V1.5 sats. So it is not likely he was talking about ISL.
Well, this is pure speculation, but I think "more capable" could mean direct communication with cell phones. I believe this would require larger more powerful satellites with larger antenna. So yes best suited to be launched on Starship.
"More Capable" probably means inter satellite comms
Well, this is pure speculation, but I think "more capable" could mean direct communication with cell phones. I believe this would require larger more powerful satellites with larger antenna. So yes best suited to be launched on Starship.
No, that would require a complete redesign of the satellite. Currently there're companies trying to do this (direct communication to cellphone), for example AST SpaceMobile and Lynk, but I don't think Starlink will get into this for a while, they have a lot on their plate already."More Capable" probably means inter satellite comms
Inter-Satellite Link (ISL) is v1.5, v2.0 probably means more communication bandwidth, currently it's 22 Gbps per satellite.
I think they had ISLs on the 10 Starlinks they launched on the first Transporter F9 launch."More Capable" probably means inter satellite commsMusk also stated the prior to the V2 sats the start of the deployment of the V1.5 (V1 sats with ISL) and discontinuous of deployment of sats without it would start soon as in late this year or very early next year. It will probably take a while before existing v1.0 sats are replaced though. Will have to watch the sat payload deploy video for evidence of the attached ISL's. I have been watching for it already. It should be easily identifiable if not actually published by SpaceX prior to launch of the fact that the sat load is ISL capable. The V2 sats are likely to be more capable than the V1.5 sats. So it is not likely he was talking about ISL.
Yes they did.I think they had ISLs on the 10 Starlinks they launched on the first Transporter F9 launch."More Capable" probably means inter satellite commsMusk also stated the prior to the V2 sats the start of the deployment of the V1.5 (V1 sats with ISL) and discontinuous of deployment of sats without it would start soon as in late this year or very early next year. It will probably take a while before existing v1.0 sats are replaced though. Will have to watch the sat payload deploy video for evidence of the attached ISL's. I have been watching for it already. It should be easily identifiable if not actually published by SpaceX prior to launch of the fact that the sat load is ISL capable. The V2 sats are likely to be more capable than the V1.5 sats. So it is not likely he was talking about ISL.
Looks like the rev2_prod (grey) dish has quite a few changes over the rev1_pre_prod (black) which probably cut the cost quite a bit: https://www.reddit.com/r/StarlinkEngineering/comments/ofecg2/dishy_hardware_costcutting_changes/Actually the KU Leuven post from Belgium that is seems to be the origin point of this material specifies that the detected board version is reported as "rev2_proto2".
Let hang more spaghetti on people years. Sure.Bipartisan group of senators introduces $40 billion bill to close the digital divide (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/15/digital-divide-bridge-act-senate/)QuoteIt would prioritize building what lawmakers are calling “future proof” networks, requiring in most instances for the new networks to support upload and download speeds of at least 100 Mbps, to ensure they do not quickly become outdated.
This new obsession with symmetric upload/download speed is strange, I have fiber and my download is consistently 10x more than my upload. I'm not sure there is a customer related rational for requiring this, I wonder if this is a new roadblock specifically setup to exclude fixed wireless and satellite constellations. Given this, is there any technical reason LEO constellation in general and Starlink in particular couldn't support symmetric upload/download speed?
Symmetric is very useful for several consumer use cases: cloud backups, streaming (on Twitch for example), running a small business out of the home, having good video on your Zoom calls, etc. Most current providers will charge you through the nose for a "Business" plan that is symmetric, whereas this requirement would make symmetric the default.
Can't speak to technical reasons why Starlink may or may not support symmetric up/down, but to my layman's perspective, I don't see any obvious roadblocks.
#Starlink satellite observations in high resolution showing the shadow effect of the visors on the satellite bus. L-18 sat in parking orbit in brightness minimized configuration (usually set in this mode a few weeks after launch. L-14 sat in operational orbit looking similar.
Yes they did.I think they had ISLs on the 10 Starlinks they launched on the first Transporter F9 launch."More Capable" probably means inter satellite commsMusk also stated the prior to the V2 sats the start of the deployment of the V1.5 (V1 sats with ISL) and discontinuous of deployment of sats without it would start soon as in late this year or very early next year. It will probably take a while before existing v1.0 sats are replaced though. Will have to watch the sat payload deploy video for evidence of the attached ISL's. I have been watching for it already. It should be easily identifiable if not actually published by SpaceX prior to launch of the fact that the sat load is ISL capable. The V2 sats are likely to be more capable than the V1.5 sats. So it is not likely he was talking about ISL.
They needed a realistic environment test of the ISL designs to see how well they work.
Did anyone get a video of the 3 Starlinks deployed by Transporter 2 to see if those also had an ISL (highly likely). They may be a finalized design based on info from the other 10. Another possible test prior to mass deployment of the design. Or just the extras manufactured with the original 10 on Transporter 1.
Yes they did.I think they had ISLs on the 10 Starlinks they launched on the first Transporter F9 launch."More Capable" probably means inter satellite commsMusk also stated the prior to the V2 sats the start of the deployment of the V1.5 (V1 sats with ISL) and discontinuous of deployment of sats without it would start soon as in late this year or very early next year. It will probably take a while before existing v1.0 sats are replaced though. Will have to watch the sat payload deploy video for evidence of the attached ISL's. I have been watching for it already. It should be easily identifiable if not actually published by SpaceX prior to launch of the fact that the sat load is ISL capable. The V2 sats are likely to be more capable than the V1.5 sats. So it is not likely he was talking about ISL.
They needed a realistic environment test of the ISL designs to see how well they work.
Did anyone get a video of the 3 Starlinks deployed by Transporter 2 to see if those also had an ISL (highly likely). They may be a finalized design based on info from the other 10. Another possible test prior to mass deployment of the design. Or just the extras manufactured with the original 10 on Transporter 1.
I’ve tried to figure out if the ISL’s were on those 3 but haven’t been able to confirm. But I agree that they must be there and that it’s a test. Why else bother to launch just 3 satellites with west coast flights with 60 per flight coming up at the end of the month.
3 satellites make sense for a good test as you can start with one, pass through the second and come down on the third.
In what could prove to be a big win for the government's Make in India push, Elon Musk-led SpaceX is planning to join hands with Indian companies to locally manufacture satellite communications equipment, including antenna systems and user terminal devices, reports Economic Times.
The development comes at a time when SpaceX is gearing to roll out its high-speed satellite broadband services in India next year. The company's director (market access with the Starlink program) Matt Botwin said, "SpaceX is excited to find ways to work together with the Indian industry for manufacturing products for its Starlink devices."
Well that's one way to gain India market entry: Elon Musk Led SpaceX To Partner With Indian Firms To Manufacture Satellite Communications Equipment In India (https://news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-led-spacex-partner-034616470.html)If manpower salaries (direct costs) is 50% of the UT's cost. It would lower the UT's prices in India. Also these would be made to India FCC equivalent regs not US regs so there may be additional savings per UT there as well. But such would make them not usable in most other countries/markets. The primary goal is to make them cheap and aimed specifically at the market for which it is made: India and other similar countries with very similar comm regs. NOTE there may ultimately not be that much difference between these and US made and FCC certified design UT's. Especially as the designs mature and there becomes one super level design that meets or exceeds regs for any country worldwide.QuoteIn what could prove to be a big win for the government's Make in India push, Elon Musk-led SpaceX is planning to join hands with Indian companies to locally manufacture satellite communications equipment, including antenna systems and user terminal devices, reports Economic Times.
The development comes at a time when SpaceX is gearing to roll out its high-speed satellite broadband services in India next year. The company's director (market access with the Starlink program) Matt Botwin said, "SpaceX is excited to find ways to work together with the Indian industry for manufacturing products for its Starlink devices."
Well that's one way to gain India market entry: Elon Musk Led SpaceX To Partner With Indian Firms To Manufacture Satellite Communications Equipment In India (https://news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-led-spacex-partner-034616470.html)QuoteIn what could prove to be a big win for the government's Make in India push, Elon Musk-led SpaceX is planning to join hands with Indian companies to locally manufacture satellite communications equipment, including antenna systems and user terminal devices, reports Economic Times.
The development comes at a time when SpaceX is gearing to roll out its high-speed satellite broadband services in India next year. The company's director (market access with the Starlink program) Matt Botwin said, "SpaceX is excited to find ways to work together with the Indian industry for manufacturing products for its Starlink devices."
New paper: An Updated Comparison of Four Low Earth Orbit Satellite Constellation Systems to Provide Global Broadband (http://systemarchitect.mit.edu/docs/pachler21a.pdf)This is due to the fact that the calculation is carried out taking into account the population density on Earth, since SpaceX has polar orbits where the population density is low (or zero), Gbit in these areas is not counted in the calculations, and Amazon has practically no satellites above the poles and all satellites are located above habitable areas and can theoretically provide service.
Didn't look at this closely, not sure how Amazon's final configuration was able to get so much more bandwidth.
Rural IL. Game/Life changer. Thanks @SpaceX @elonmusk
Glad it’s working! The sheer amount of work done by SpaceX engineering, production & launch teams is amazing.
Ping should improve dramatically in coming months. We’re aiming for <20ms. Basically, you should be able to play competitive FPS games through Starlink.
Is ping being improved due to new satellites with better hardware, or just more satellites on earth orbit?
More ground stations & less foolish packet routing will make the biggest differences.
Looking at speed of light as ~300km per millisecond & satellite altitude of ~550km, average photon round-trip time is only ~10ms, so a lot of silly things have to happen to drive ping >20ms.
Does having Laser links (present in the newer satellites) help in improving speeds & reducing the latency? Or they're mainly to provide Internet connection in the Polar regions?
Laser links in orbit can reduce long-distance latency by as much as 50%, due to higher speed of light in vacuum & shorter path than undersea fiber
What wavelength are you using for laser crosslinks... or is that top secret?
Similar to fiber optic. We are trying to ride the terrestrial fiber optic laser technology forcing function, but modified for use in vacuum.
If we can do this successfully, then anything developed for ground/undersea fiber is automatically better in orbit
No need for base stations eventually?
Some traffic could just go terminal -> satellite -> satellite -> terminal and never touch the regular Internet
Tesla bull ARK Invest estimates Starlink to generate over $20B cash flow per year
By Simon Alvarez Posted on July 15, 2021
One of Tesla’s most ardent bulls believes that Elon Musk’s Starlink has a lot of innate potential, so much so that the satellite internet service may churn over $20 billion of cash flow annually. To get to this point, however, Starlink would first have to survive its early years, which would likely be extremely challenging.
In a recent note, ARK Invest, a firm that was closest in predicting TSLA stock’s wild rise last year, stated that it believes Starlink’s cash flows would be negative for the first eight years.
I see no particularly good reason why Starlink can’t eventually provide as much revenue as Comcast, which is around $100 billion per year.
Yeah, although profit is not even necessary. As long as it pays for itself (with a very reasonable return to pay for loans and prevent dilution, etc), it’ll be beneficial just by providing an anchor customer to Starship.I see no particularly good reason why Starlink can’t eventually provide as much revenue as Comcast, which is around $100 billion per year.
I agree. $20B maybe only US revenue. That’s 16.7M users at $100 a month.
Starlink Global revenue could be multiples of $20B
My gosh, just occurred to me, that if SpaceX applies a lot of Starlinks profit to colonizing Mars that they could have a budget larger than NASA!
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-tsla-ark-invest-starlink-20b-cash-flow/QuoteTesla bull ARK Invest estimates Starlink to generate over $20B cash flow per year
By Simon Alvarez Posted on July 15, 2021
One of Tesla’s most ardent bulls believes that Elon Musk’s Starlink has a lot of innate potential, so much so that the satellite internet service may churn over $20 billion of cash flow annually. To get to this point, however, Starlink would first have to survive its early years, which would likely be extremely challenging.
In a recent note, ARK Invest, a firm that was closest in predicting TSLA stock’s wild rise last year, stated that it believes Starlink’s cash flows would be negative for the first eight years.
I see no particularly good reason why Starlink can’t eventually provide as much revenue as Comcast, which is around $100 billion per year.
I agree. $20B maybe only US revenue. That’s 16.7M users at $100 a month.
Starlink Global revenue could be multiples of $20B
My gosh, just occurred to me, that if SpaceX applies a lot of Starlinks profit to colonizing Mars that they could have a budget larger than NASA!
Yeah, although profit is not even necessary. As long as it pays for itself (with a very reasonable return to pay for loans and prevent dilution, etc), it’ll be beneficial just by providing an anchor customer to Starship.I see no particularly good reason why Starlink can’t eventually provide as much revenue as Comcast, which is around $100 billion per year.
I agree. $20B maybe only US revenue. That’s 16.7M users at $100 a month.
Starlink Global revenue could be multiples of $20B
My gosh, just occurred to me, that if SpaceX applies a lot of Starlinks profit to colonizing Mars that they could have a budget larger than NASA!
If Mars settlement requires 10 launches per year (say), and that’s out of 100-1000 total launches, those 10 launches will be cheap. If those 10 launches are the only Starship launches, those 10 launches will be almost 10 times the price.
Therefore even just providing an anchor customer for Starship launches is almost as good as high profit.
No, even if you’re counting on it as internal costs, Starlink is still there to pay for the fixed costs. Investors interested in Starlink alone will be contributing to the fixed costs of Starship because that’s necessary for launching Starlink.Yeah, although profit is not even necessary. As long as it pays for itself (with a very reasonable return to pay for loans and prevent dilution, etc), it’ll be beneficial just by providing an anchor customer to Starship.I see no particularly good reason why Starlink can’t eventually provide as much revenue as Comcast, which is around $100 billion per year.
I agree. $20B maybe only US revenue. That’s 16.7M users at $100 a month.
Starlink Global revenue could be multiples of $20B
My gosh, just occurred to me, that if SpaceX applies a lot of Starlinks profit to colonizing Mars that they could have a budget larger than NASA!
If Mars settlement requires 10 launches per year (say), and that’s out of 100-1000 total launches, those 10 launches will be cheap. If those 10 launches are the only Starship launches, those 10 launches will be almost 10 times the price.
Therefore even just providing an anchor customer for Starship launches is almost as good as high profit.
In this scenario, the cost of a Starship launch doesn't improve 10x due to Starlink. These are internal launches with marginal launch costs. Fixed costs were going to be incurred regardless, if not have more incurred to produce more launch facility.
Starlink isn't a customer to Starship. Starlink is a promising CapEx project of SpaceX. The benefit is programmatic in that you get a higher launch cadence to qualify your reliability.
Correct in that Starlink will have an impact but only from a point of having an upfront load of payloads. Starlink 12,000 sat constellation would have a need for ~2500sats/yr launch rate. On Starship with V2 sats that are 2X more massive and 3X as many per launch that is just 14 launches in a year. Also NOTE a 30,000 sat constellation would need a 6,000sats/yr rate or 34 launches a year. But initially just 12 launches a year supplemented by a few F9's would work out well as in what would happen in mid 2022 to mid 2023. A second pad (39A) used in other launches such as for HLS would allow a great deal of iterative improvement of Starship Launch, on orbit refueling, and EDL. Such that by 2024 most of the problems have answers and both SH and SS are being reused. In that case launch rates can increase and costs per launch drop which helps SpaceX and Starlink avoid costs.Yeah, although profit is not even necessary. As long as it pays for itself (with a very reasonable return to pay for loans and prevent dilution, etc), it’ll be beneficial just by providing an anchor customer to Starship.I see no particularly good reason why Starlink can’t eventually provide as much revenue as Comcast, which is around $100 billion per year.
I agree. $20B maybe only US revenue. That’s 16.7M users at $100 a month.
Starlink Global revenue could be multiples of $20B
My gosh, just occurred to me, that if SpaceX applies a lot of Starlinks profit to colonizing Mars that they could have a budget larger than NASA!
If Mars settlement requires 10 launches per year (say), and that’s out of 100-1000 total launches, those 10 launches will be cheap. If those 10 launches are the only Starship launches, those 10 launches will be almost 10 times the price.
Therefore even just providing an anchor customer for Starship launches is almost as good as high profit.
In this scenario, the cost of a Starship launch doesn't improve 10x due to Starlink. These are internal launches with marginal launch costs. Fixed costs were going to be incurred regardless, if not have more incurred to produce more launch facility.
Starlink isn't a customer to Starship. Starlink is a promising CapEx project of SpaceX. The benefit is programmatic in that you get a higher launch cadence to qualify your reliability.
When Elon is talking about $20-30 billion in capex to build out Starlink, that is INCLUSIVE of launch costs. Since Starship is a very large, fully reusable rocket, a lot of that is just fixed costs. That massively reduces the costs of building a Mars city even if it’s not really generating a significant amount of profit.A simple Note here is that about 2/3 or more of that $20-30B is covered by Starlink revenue during the constellation both operations and build out. With Starship being awarded funds from Starlink just for launching it's sats , About 30,000 sats (includes practically all V1 sats being replaced with V2 sats or even some of the next generation V3 sats) at $100K from an initially $500K each or ~$10B. Initial cost/sat would be at $500K/sat for first year or two or around $3-5B then the other years at much lower $/sat rates for a likely total over 6 years of ~$10B transferred to Starship from Starlink investment funds and revenues. Also NOTE buildout of Starlink is a period of time of 9 years starting in 2018 and ending 2027 just 6 years from now.
This is doubly true if starship is using solar-to-methane ISRU on earth and if Starlink is paying for the capability to make hundreds of megawatts of cheap space-rated solar panels.
No, even if you’re counting on it as internal costs, Starlink is still there to pay for the fixed costs. Investors interested in Starlink alone will be contributing to the fixed costs of Starship because that’s necessary for launching Starlink.
Again, I’m not counting Starlink launches as a profit center for SpaceX, so you pointing out they’re not a “customer” to Starship is irrelevant. Because Starship is necessary for the full Starlink constellation, the fixed costs of Starship can be charged as required costs for Starlink.
So absolutely, Starlink helps Mars missions by paying for the fixed costs of Starship even if it doesn’t generate a bunch of profit.
If Starship has a fixed cost of $4.9 billion per year and a marginal cost of $10 million per launch, then…
Suppose I have $5 billion per year to pay for The Mars city from selling Tesla stock.
Starlink is already paying for it fixed cost of starship all of that $5 billion can be spent on marginal launch costs. So even if profit is essentially zero, it’s the same as getting an extra $4.9 billion a year or whatever
When Elon is talking about $20-30 billion in capex to build out Starlink, that is INCLUSIVE of launch costs. Since Starship is a very large, fully reusable rocket, a lot of that is just fixed costs. That massively reduces the costs of building a Mars city even if it’s not really generating a significant amount of profit.
This is doubly true if starship is using solar-to-methane ISRU on earth and if Starlink is paying for the capability to make hundreds of megawatts of cheap space-rated solar panels.
No, even if you’re counting on it as internal costs, Starlink is still there to pay for the fixed costs. Investors interested in Starlink alone will be contributing to the fixed costs of Starship because that’s necessary for launching Starlink.
Again, I’m not counting Starlink launches as a profit center for SpaceX, so you pointing out they’re not a “customer” to Starship is irrelevant. Because Starship is necessary for the full Starlink constellation, the fixed costs of Starship can be charged as required costs for Starlink.
So absolutely, Starlink helps Mars missions by paying for the fixed costs of Starship even if it doesn’t generate a bunch of profit.
You are butchering these financial concepts. Maybe you are talking about a hypothetical future in which Starlink is a separate entity. Until then what you are saying if fundamentally foundationless.
1) There are no investors interested in Starlink alone. Starlink doesn't have investors. SpaceX has investors. The only Starlink investor is SpaceX.
2) You have to count Starlink as a profit center if you are going to charge costs and accrue revenue there. But even then, Starlink isn't paying for Starship fixed costs. If monthly CMEs wipes out the Starlink fleet, Starlink hasn't paid for any fixed costs because they didn't pay for launches because they don't have independent funds. Customers have independent funds and put money in SpaceX pocket before services are provided. Starlink doesn't. It has accounting entries. It's far from irrelevant that Starlink isn't a customer.
3) "Paying for" only by potentially generating cash flow. Not "paying for" in any traditional sense.If Starship has a fixed cost of $4.9 billion per year and a marginal cost of $10 million per launch, then…
Suppose I have $5 billion per year to pay for The Mars city from selling Tesla stock.
Starlink is already paying for it fixed cost of starship all of that $5 billion can be spent on marginal launch costs. So even if profit is essentially zero, it’s the same as getting an extra $4.9 billion a year or whatever
4) Starlink isn't paying the $5B. SpaceX is. But yes, if Starlink happens to generate $5B in cash flow then SpaceX doesn't have to go back to the capital markets to raise next year's $5B. Still doesn't mean Starlink paid for the fixed costs. Just means SpaceX made a smart investment. And it still doesn't mean there was a 10x reduction in launch costs. SpaceX is already paying the fixed costs regardless. If I want to come around with my $5B in Tesla-derived funds, I still only have to pay marginal launch costs.When Elon is talking about $20-30 billion in capex to build out Starlink, that is INCLUSIVE of launch costs. Since Starship is a very large, fully reusable rocket, a lot of that is just fixed costs. That massively reduces the costs of building a Mars city even if it’s not really generating a significant amount of profit.
This is doubly true if starship is using solar-to-methane ISRU on earth and if Starlink is paying for the capability to make hundreds of megawatts of cheap space-rated solar panels.
5) Of course it includes launch costs. ::) Still doesn't mean Starlink is paying for them. But yes, Starlink can clearly help by generating revenue and cash flow to SpaceX.
6) Hasn't solar-to-methane ISRU been calculated to be less financial advantageous vs. selling the solar into the grid and buying methane? And how can it "doubly massively" reduce costs if propellant is such a miniscule portion of costs.
7) Yes. Cheap space-rated solar would be nice. Still not sure it's going to "doubly massively" reduce costs.
I think that Starlink could make SpaceX as trillion dollar valuation company.
100 million users is not that hard to imagine. There are currently several billion people without internet access at all or not access to high speed internet. There are at least 40 million potential customers in the US and the EU alone.
I think that Starlink could make SpaceX as trillion dollar valuation company.
100 million users is not that hard to imagine. There are currently several billion people without internet access at all or not access to high speed internet. There are at least 40 million potential customers in the US and the EU alone.
Hmm - 100 million customers times $100 each comes out to be $10 billion/month revenue. I guess $120 billion per year in revenue could make a trillion $ company. What companies do we know of that generate that much revenue and what is their valuation?
SpaceX will probably expand services to maintain or even increase $100/month average revenue. Look at the revenue streams of Comcast. It's just not just Internet.
I think that Starlink could make SpaceX as trillion dollar valuation company.
100 million users is not that hard to imagine. There are currently several billion people without internet access at all or not access to high speed internet. There are at least 40 million potential customers in the US and the EU alone.
I expect Starlink to maximize revenue. And I don't think they'll take steps to have LESS total revenue than Comcast.SpaceX will probably expand services to maintain or even increase $100/month average revenue. Look at the revenue streams of Comcast. It's just not just Internet.
For direct-to-consumer? Have doubts. They have already stated they want to maintain a simple single tier approach.
Are there revenue streams beyond just being an L3 transport (i.e., IP) provider? Certainly. As you suggest, Comcast et. al. receive quite a bit of revenue through third parties. E.g., consumer signs up for access to X, Y, and Z content providers through Comcast; Comcast takes a cut.
However, would also caution that model is in potential jeopardy. If it is all Internet (which is they way things are going), consumers may increasingly go direct to content providers. E.g., Disney+, HBOMax, ... don't need to go through Comcast or whoever; just give me Internet broadband.
edit: p.s. This is a pretty classic disruptive model we have seen in other industries: devalue your competitors advantages to the point where they do not have much of an advantage. Time will tell, but expect Starlink will NOT follow in Comcast et. al.'s footsteps.
Starlink will aim to maximize total revenue not revenue per user.Correct. And I fail to see why that will be assisted much by not offering services that many other broadband Internet providers also use to increase their total revenue.
I think that Starlink could make SpaceX as trillion dollar valuation company.
100 million users is not that hard to imagine. There are currently several billion people without internet access at all or not access to high speed internet. There are at least 40 million potential customers in the US and the EU alone.
Most of those without access are not in a position to pay $100/month.
I think that Starlink could make SpaceX as trillion dollar valuation company.
100 million users is not that hard to imagine. There are currently several billion people without internet access at all or not access to high speed internet. There are at least 40 million potential customers in the US and the EU alone.
Most of those without access are not in a position to pay $100/month.
Starlink will almost certainly support a combination of wifi access point sharing and cell backhaul in those cases. So they would likely get a lot less revenue, perhaps $10/user for wifi access or $1/user for cell access, but across many more end users.
Starlink has been used as a shared resource for Native American reservation schools, other places.I think that Starlink could make SpaceX as trillion dollar valuation company.
100 million users is not that hard to imagine. There are currently several billion people without internet access at all or not access to high speed internet. There are at least 40 million potential customers in the US and the EU alone.
Most of those without access are not in a position to pay $100/month.
Redclaws: Most of those without access are not in a position to pay $100/month.
This might come down to the final terms on account exclusivity.
Sx might not end up caring how much of an account's bandwidth is in use, and if the account holder doesn't care about sharing the b/w, the economies alter radically. Put the whole village/campground/island/school/B&B/restaurant/etc on one dishy.
In my personal case, if my neighbor and I could share a dishy, we could both materially multiply our current b/w for less than we are paying now for separate terrestrial RF accounts.
I think that Starlink could make SpaceX as trillion dollar valuation company.
100 million users is not that hard to imagine. There are currently several billion people without internet access at all or not access to high speed internet. There are at least 40 million potential customers in the US and the EU alone.
Most of those without access are not in a position to pay $100/month.
Starlink will almost certainly support a combination of wifi access point sharing and cell backhaul in those cases. So they would likely get a lot less revenue, perhaps $10/user for wifi access or $1/user for cell access, but across many more end users.
I agree; I just wanted to gently take issue with the specific math in the quoted post.
It will be really, really interesting to see how far it goes - how many customers can they find and how many can they handle, especially compared to the global market. I think it’s going to be “lots” and “lots”, but it’s still fascinating.
Redclaws: Most of those without access are not in a position to pay $100/month.
This might come down to the final terms on account exclusivity.
Sx might not end up caring how much of an account's bandwidth is in use, and if the account holder doesn't care about sharing the b/w, the economies alter radically. Put the whole village/campground/island/school/B&B/restaurant/etc on one dishy.
In my personal case, if my neighbor and I could share a dishy, we could both materially multiply our current b/w for less than we are paying now for separate terrestrial RF accounts.
SpaceX does not currently grant permission for regular users to share bandwidth. This is explicit in the terms of use.
However, despite their professed claim to only want one service package, there are obviously going to be other packages with other terms of use, and probably other bandwidths and prices. Musk said recently that they are negotiating with several cell providers to provide backhaul, and there are other instances where they allowed some kinds of sharing.
So there will be sharing and reselling, though how that works and how much it costs for what kind of service remains to be seen.
You can't resell bandwidth on Starlink. You can give it away for free, I guess.Redclaws: Most of those without access are not in a position to pay $100/month.
This might come down to the final terms on account exclusivity.
Sx might not end up caring how much of an account's bandwidth is in use, and if the account holder doesn't care about sharing the b/w, the economies alter radically. Put the whole village/campground/island/school/B&B/restaurant/etc on one dishy.
In my personal case, if my neighbor and I could share a dishy, we could both materially multiply our current b/w for less than we are paying now for separate terrestrial RF accounts.
SpaceX does not currently grant permission for regular users to share bandwidth. This is explicit in the terms of use.
However, despite their professed claim to only want one service package, there are obviously going to be other packages with other terms of use, and probably other bandwidths and prices. Musk said recently that they are negotiating with several cell providers to provide backhaul, and there are other instances where they allowed some kinds of sharing.
So there will be sharing and reselling, though how that works and how much it costs for what kind of service remains to be seen.
We have one set of neighbors who have a multi-generational + in-laws + out-laws household that numbers 14. They frequently have additional people stay over for a week or two. AFAIK they share a single cable internet connection and I suspect that they have well over a dozen devices connected at any one time.
They don't use Starlink. They reasonably qualify as near the upper end of a typical single "household." But especially for Starlink's target market there is probably an immense grey area that extends well beyond this. A ranch that has a home and several outbuildings all connected but just a single small family. That seems reasonable, but how is that really different from when 3 dozen seasonal workers show up and stay in the outbuildings and use the wifi?
About a dozen Taiwanese companies — including Microelectronics Technology Inc., Win Semiconductors and Kinpo Electronics — are providing components and ground-based reception equipment for SpaceX, Yu said.
Ultimately Starlink’s revenue from the general public largely comes down to how many paying subscribers can be supported per satellite, multiplied by the number of satellites over populated areas at any given time. (So therefore largely excluding satellites over empty ocean, the Sahara desert, Antarctica, the Amazon jungle, China, etc).
I’d say that means maybe 5-10% of all satellites at any given time. So let’s say 400 satellites out of the 4000 in the initial constellation will be above customers at any particular time.
If each one can support 10,000 subscribers simultaneously (a reasonable over subscription ratio already included), that means a maximum of 4 million paying customers can be serviced. So $4B annual revenue. However, since subscribers aren’t evenly distributed across the earth’s landmasses, the average might be half that, say 5000 per satellite = $2B revenue.
Therefore, ultimately, it really be comes down to the bandwidth per satellite. That’s the constraint they have to focus on improving. To turn that 10,000 subscribers into 100,000 per satellite.
Edit
The above obviously excludes revenue from airlines, shipping companies, the military, the odd scientific station at the South Pole and random guys wanting to browse the internet from some oasis in the middle of the Sahara.
Ultimately Starlink’s revenue from the general public largely comes down to how many paying subscribers can be supported per satellite, multiplied by the number of satellites over populated areas at any given time. (So therefore largely excluding satellites over empty ocean, the Sahara desert, Antarctica, the Amazon jungle, China, etc).
I’d say that means maybe 5-10% of all satellites at any given time. So let’s say 400 satellites out of the 4000 in the initial constellation will be above customers at any particular time.
If each one can support 10,000 subscribers simultaneously (a reasonable over subscription ratio already included), that means a maximum of 4 million paying customers can be serviced. So $4B annual revenue. However, since subscribers aren’t evenly distributed across the earth’s landmasses, the average might be half that, say 5000 per satellite = $2B revenue.
Therefore, ultimately, it really be comes down to the bandwidth per satellite. That’s the constraint they have to focus on improving. To turn that 10,000 subscribers into 100,000 per satellite.
Edit
The above obviously excludes revenue from airlines, shipping companies, the military, the odd scientific station at the South Pole and random guys wanting to browse the internet from some oasis in the middle of the Sahara.
Sounds like the right approach. However, you should assume that they get to 40,000 birds pretty quickly, which would give you 40M subs @$100/mo = $48B. Then throw in another couple billion for the military, guaranteed low latency CoS, mobile backhaul, airlines and other mobile apps, and various other interesting VPNs, and you're at close to $50B.
Just for comparison, Comcast has 31M subs at a somewhat lower price point.
Therefore, ultimately, it really be comes down to the bandwidth per satellite. That’s the constraint they have to focus on improving. To turn that 10,000 subscribers into 100,000 per satellite.
Therefore, ultimately, it really be comes down to the bandwidth per satellite. That’s the constraint they have to focus on improving. To turn that 10,000 subscribers into 100,000 per satellite.
This is a bit strange to me - subscribers per satellite is obviously a hugely important metric, but to say it comes down to that…
They can launch more satellites. Part of the premise of Starlink is very high satellite counts, and they can launch more to add capacity, so long as subscribers/satellite will pay the cost of another sat. (And the other equipment can handle it, but that seems doable.)
Obviously you can’t add sats forever, but still - quantity as well as quality can be improved here.
Basically, for the constellation to provide universal coverage, you can’t get away from what I call “dead satellite” time. The fact that maybe 90% of the constellation is not over populated areas at any given time, and therefore not generating meaningful revenue. That will never change, so it is a necessary inefficiency that has to be carried and mitigated as best possible.
So the revenue calcs should largely be based on the carrying capacity of 5-10% of the constellation at any point in time.
The maximum constellation size proposed (not sure if it’s approved yet), is around 40,000. If only 10% of those are over a revenue generating area at any given time, that puts a hard limit on your maximum subscriber number.
At the current 20 Gb bandwidth per satellite, and at an average of say 100Mb download speed per user, that only allows for 200 simultaneous users per satellite. At 10 times over subscription, that’s still only 2000 users.
Multiply that by 10% of the constellation (4000 sats) and you get only 8 million customers. With 40,000 sats in the sky.
Hence Elon already focusing on more powerful satellites for version 1.5. And that’s before the version 2 sats that will have laser links (and presumably even MORE bandwidth).
Bandwidth per satellite is the key metric, in my view.
The maximum constellation size proposed (not sure if it’s approved yet), is around 40,000. If only 10% of those are over a revenue generating area at any given time, that puts a hard limit on your maximum subscriber number.
At the current 20 Gb bandwidth per satellite, and at an average of say 100Mb download speed per user, that only allows for 200 simultaneous users per satellite. At 10 times over subscription, that’s still only 2000 users.
Multiply that by 10% of the constellation (4000 sats) and you get only 8 million customers. With 40,000 sats in the sky.
Hence Elon already focusing on more powerful satellites for version 1.5. And that’s before the version 2 sats that will have laser links (and presumably even MORE bandwidth).
Bandwidth per satellite is the key metric, in my view.
A 100Mbps average is way, way too high. I suspect that even 1Mbps is too high. So you can probably throw a couple of orders of magnitude at even the current system.
the only correct way to estimate SpaceH income from Starlink is to estimate the market. It must be remembered that the United States has one of the most expensive Internet in the world and very high incomes of the population. Very few people in Europe will be willing to pay $ 100 if the typical price in the country is 50 .. And in Africa the population simply does not have the money to pay more than $ 1-2 if their monthly income is $ 20.
https://www.atlasandboots.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cheapest-internet.jpg
the only correct way to estimate SpaceH income from Starlink is to estimate the market. It must be remembered that the United States has one of the most expensive Internet in the world and very high incomes of the population. Very few people in Europe will be willing to pay $ 100 if the typical price in the country is 50 .. And in Africa the population simply does not have the money to pay more than $ 1-2 if their monthly income is $ 20.
https://www.atlasandboots.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cheapest-internet.jpg
I'm convinced that not even SpaceX has a clear idea about how many people will use their service. The data sources seem to bias toward counting people as covered by broadband even if they aren't really covered. Perhaps this is a function of the telcos reading their own press releases and regulatory submissions a little too much.
So I take market forecasts with a grain of salt. The only way to know how many people will use the service is by offering the service.
The rest of the world is growing and will eventually be rich, like the US and Western Europe. Happened in East Asia, will happen in Africa, Latin America, and the rest of Asia over the rest of the century, with lots of growth in the coming decade or two. Starlink is well positioned to assist and benefit from that growth.
A result of the solicitation a while back for the DoD's human portable Starlink terminal development.
DUJUD Awarded Contract by the US Special Operations Command to Interface Into the SpaceX SATCOM Network (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dujud-awarded-contract-by-the-us-special-operations-command-to-interface-into-the-spacex-satcom-network-301338189.html#)
ATLANTA, July 21, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- DUJUD (DBA Micro 3D Systems) today announced it has been awarded a contract by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to develop a power-efficient man-portable SATCOM terminal to interface into the SpaceX Low Earth Orbit (LEO) commercial satellite constellation network known as STARLINK. Said terminal will exhibit a backpack form-factor at half the size of current STARLINK terminals (i.e., DISHY) with 30 to 40% less power consumption at identical data transmission speeds. The underlying technology is based on the first-of-its-kind DUJUD's 3D antenna scheme that allows for a significantly wider scanning angle (i.e., horizon-to-horizon SATCOM coverage) while reducing power consumption to the level that the terminal will be battery operated.
...
So, potentially stupid question, is DOD working with SpaceX on this or are they just assuming SpaceX would allow third-party antennas to talk to Starlink sats?
Judges reject Viasat’s plea to stop SpaceX Starlink satellite launches
Viasat fears SpaceX competition, sought freeze on launches and environmental review.
JON BRODKIN - 7/22/2021, 10:30 PM
SpaceX can keep launching broadband satellites despite a lawsuit filed by Viasat, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Viasat sued the Federal Communications Commission in May and asked judges for a stay that would halt SpaceX's ongoing launches of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites that power Starlink Internet service. To get a stay, Viasat had to show that it is likely to win its lawsuit alleging that the FCC improperly approved the satellite launches.
now Starlink uses only one polarization for its user terminals, perhaps these special DOD terminals will use the second polarization, which is currently idle and does not generate incomeSo, potentially stupid question, is DOD working with SpaceX on this or are they just assuming SpaceX would allow third-party antennas to talk to Starlink sats?
DoD will use third party antennas with the Starlink network.
So, potentially stupid question, is DOD working with SpaceX on this or are they just assuming SpaceX would allow third-party antennas to talk to Starlink sats?
DoD will use third party antennas with the Starlink network.
This does not answer the question. Is Starlink working with DOD?So, potentially stupid question, is DOD working with SpaceX on this or are they just assuming SpaceX would allow third-party antennas to talk to Starlink sats?
DoD will use third party antennas with the Starlink network.
This does not answer the question. Is Starlink working with DOD?So, potentially stupid question, is DOD working with SpaceX on this or are they just assuming SpaceX would allow third-party antennas to talk to Starlink sats?
DoD will use third party antennas with the Starlink network.
Since our last update, the Starlink team has been hard at work building the systems and infrastructure to enable growth while continuously improving service quality. Below are some of the highlights:
Space Lasers
As Elon recently mentioned, the Starlink team is preparing to launch upgraded satellites that will include space lasers. Space lasers enable our satellites to transfer data between each other without having to go through a ground station. Once fully deployed, space lasers will make Starlink one of the fastest options available to transfer data around the world.
Connecting to the Best Satellite
The team completed roll out of a new feature to all users that enables your Starlink to seamlessly switch to a different satellite in real time if communication with your assigned satellite is interrupted for any reason. There can only be one satellite connected to your Starlink at any time, but this feature will enable choice of the best satellite, resulting in far fewer network disruptions.
High Temperature Management
The Starlink team has initiated a series of software improvements that change how your Starlink responds to high temperatures. These improvements will roll out over the next few weeks and should address invalid “Thermal Shutdown” app alerts seen by some customers.
Starlink App Upgrades
The Starlink team recently rolled out several improvements that enable users to do all of the following from the app:
* make network name/password changes
* enable WPA3 security implement
* separate control of 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz
To date, Starlink has received deposits from almost every country around the world. Going forward, our ability to expand service will be driven in part by governments granting Starlink licensing internationally.
Thank you for being an early user of Starlink—we appreciate your feedback and continued support!
The Starlink Team
This sounds too good to be true but just in case I'll post it anyway.
https://spacenews.com/tech-breakthrough-morphs-gigabit-wifi-into-terabit-satellite-internet/
I looked at the orbits of just one batch of Starlink satellites and you can see them starting as a single block eventually splitting into 3 planes while losing a couple along the way
Orbital precession takes a long time. With Starship & Starlink V2.0, hopefully we can direct inject to target orbit.
Orbital precession takes a long time. With Starship & Starlink V2.0, hopefully we can direct inject to target orbit.Wow. The extra delta-V required to do several direct injection batches would considerably reduce the maximum payload.
QuoteOrbital precession takes a long time. With Starship & Starlink V2.0, hopefully we can direct inject to target orbit.Wow. The extra delta-V required to do several direct injection batches would considerably reduce the maximum payload.
On the bright side for people worried about risking lots of Starlink birds on an early flight, putting up fewer birds but getting them to position faster may seem like a great trade.
On the bright side for people worried about risking lots of Starlink birds on an early flight, putting up fewer birds but getting them to position faster may seem like a great trade.
Adjacent and west of the vacuum chamber is the Vibroacoustic High Bay, which houses the MVF, a modal floor and the RATF facility. The high bay has a clear height under the (18.14 t) (20-ton) bridge crane of 62 feet. Doors into the vacuum chamber measure 15.24 by 15.24 m (50 ft by 50 ft).
Space Act Agreement where SpaceX pays NASA $39,127 to use Glenn's Space Environments Complex (SEC) (https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/facilities/sec/) for Starlink modal testing. Looks like they'll be using Vibroacoustic High Bay, which according to GRC website is:QuoteAdjacent and west of the vacuum chamber is the Vibroacoustic High Bay, which houses the MVF, a modal floor and the RATF facility. The high bay has a clear height under the (18.14 t) (20-ton) bridge crane of 62 feet. Doors into the vacuum chamber measure 15.24 by 15.24 m (50 ft by 50 ft).
MVF = Mechanical Vibration Facility, RATF = Reverberant Acoustic Test Facility
I wonder if this is for V2.0 and the fact that they're renting a big NASA facility means it's bigger and heavier than V1.0.
A Starlink antenna operates during the Global Information Dominance Experiment 3 and Architecture Demonstration and Evaluation 5 at Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center, Alpena, Mich., July 15, 2021. The North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command in partnership with all 11 combatant commands, led the third in a series of Global Information Dominance Experiments designed to rapidly develop the capabilities required to increase deterrence options in competition and crisis through a data-centric, software-based approach. GIDE events combine people and technology to innovate and accelerate system development for domain awareness, information dominance, decisional superiority and global integration. The GIDE 3 experiment was executed in conjunction with the Department of the Air Force's Chief Architect Office as part of their fifth Architecture Demonstration and Evaluation event (ADE 5), and the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Peter Thompson)
SpaceX’s Starlink mobile app got a refreshing upgrade this week that makes it easier to find clear patches of sky and monitor connection outages — and adds a new dark mode for its user interface. The app improvements came out yesterday as SpaceX reported 90,000 active users in its open “better than nothing” beta phase, which spans rural regions across 12 different countries so far.
The “completely updated and renovated” version, as SpaceX describes in its Apple’s App Store changelog, includes a new way to scan your surroundings for obstructions before installing a Starlink terminal. Like its previous method, the app directs users to scan their surroundings using their phone cameras, but the new version generates a tiny dome around your Starlink dish that overlays potential obstructions, marked by different colors. Reddit users seemed impressed.
SpaceX is working on a “ruggedized” version of its Starlink dish designed to work outside cars, boats, and planes and in harsh climates.
SpaceX filed an application with the FCC on Tuesday to operate the so-called “high-performance” Starlink dish. The hardware still relies on a phased array antenna to receive the high-speed internet from SpaceX satellites in orbit.
“But these high-performance (‘HP’) models will operate with higher gain and lower transmit power (thus maintaining a consistent EIRP compared to other SpaceX Services user terminals), a higher scan angle, and features that ruggedize the unit for use in harsh environments,” the company wrote in the application.
The D.C. Circuit should reject ViaSat’s attempt to weaponize NEPA against SpaceX and clarify that the statute does not apply in outer space. Absent a clear indication, statutes are presumed not to apply outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. The court need not settle the question of whether NEPA has any extraterritorial application because there is nothing to suggest that the statute applies extraterrestrially. Moreover, the effects of space launches and reentries on Earth’s environment are accounted for in the NEPA process that is part of the FAA’s licensing process. Requiring commercial spacecraft operators to carry insurance against harms caused to third parties by on-orbit activities would protect the outer space environment while preserving America’s competitiveness in space.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp.'s (SpaceX) satellite internet service Starlink will not completely rule out providing coverage in urban areas, even though it is designed to optimize service in rural and underserved areas, according to comments submitted by the company's director of Satellite Policy, Mr. David Goldman to the Federal Communications Commission earlier this month. The submission summarized SpaceX's response to a lengthy study commissioned by RS Access, LLC., which had claimed that the 12GHz spectrum could be shared between multichannel video data distribution service (MVDDS) providers non-geostationary fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) providers such as Starlink.
In his latest presentation, the SpaceX executive outlined to the Commission that his internet service can scale up operations to provider converge to 30 million Americans who currently completely lack internet coverage or are underserved. He also criticized RS's study by stating that it makes overly restricting assumptions about satellite internet, 'cherry-picks' information and uses data unrepresentative of real-world performance.
Starlink Can Scale Service To Serve 30 Million Americans Says Executive (https://wccftech.com/starlink-can-scale-service-to-serve-30-million-americans-says-executive/)Quote from: wccftechSpace Exploration Technologies Corp.'s (SpaceX) satellite internet service Starlink will not completely rule out providing coverage in urban areas, even though it is designed to optimize service in rural and underserved areas, according to comments submitted by the company's director of Satellite Policy, Mr. David Goldman to the Federal Communications Commission earlier this month. The submission summarized SpaceX's response to a lengthy study commissioned by RS Access, LLC., which had claimed that the 12GHz spectrum could be shared between multichannel video data distribution service (MVDDS) providers non-geostationary fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) providers such as Starlink.
In his latest presentation, the SpaceX executive outlined to the Commission that his internet service can scale up operations to provider converge to 30 million Americans who currently completely lack internet coverage or are underserved. He also criticized RS's study by stating that it makes overly restricting assumptions about satellite internet, 'cherry-picks' information and uses data unrepresentative of real-world performance.
The Federal Communications Commission made a mistake when it gave SpaceX permission to launch thousands of broadband satellites from its Starlink fleet closer to Earth than originally planned without also ordering an environmental review, a group of astronomy professors told the D.C. Circuit.
https://www.law360.com/governmentcontracts/articles/1412913 (https://www.law360.com/governmentcontracts/articles/1412913)
The Federal Communications Commission made a mistake when it gave SpaceX permission to launch thousands of broadband satellites from its Starlink fleet closer to Earth than originally planned without also ordering an environmental review, a group of astronomy professors told the D.C. Circuit.
https://www.law360.com/governmentcontracts/articles/1412913 (https://www.law360.com/governmentcontracts/articles/1412913)
Generation 2 amendment SAT-AMD-20210818-00105: FCC.report (https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-AMD-20210818-00105) / FCC (http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATAMD2021081800105&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number)
They're proposing two different configurations, depending on if Starship works in the short term or they need to keep using F9. They mention single plane deployment with Starship, and it seems 110-120 would be the plane size for those.Quotethe satellites will be somewhat larger and generate more power, enabling them to support expanded capabilities now and accommodate additional payloads in the future. The Gen2 satellites will have enhanced reliability by building upon the design and operational history of the current deployment. While SpaceX was able to work extensively with the astronomy community to mitigate the reflectivity on its first-generation satellites, it has now taken that experience to design less reflective satellites from the beginning.
...
Both Configurations 1 and 2 will operate within an expanded altitude range of -50km to +70km. This increased altitude range provides the operational flexibility needed in light of the denser atmospheric conditions in which Starlink operates, helping to account for the significant impact of solar cycles.
SpaceX adding capabilities to Starlink internet satellites, plans to launch them with Starship
PUBLISHED THU, AUG 19 20211:34 PM EDT
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ
KEY POINTS
Elon Musk’s SpaceX revealed new details about plans for the next-generation of satellites in its Starlink internet system in federal filings on Wednesday.
The company intends to use its massive Starship rocket as the primary vehicle to deliver the spacecraft to orbit.
SpaceX says the Gen2 Starlink satellites are heavier and “will be somewhat larger and generate more power than originally” designed.
SpaceX: “The revised orbital planes would enable single plane launch campaigns that capitalize on the ability of Starship ... SpaceX could deploy satellites into their operational orbits within a matter of weeks after launch, rather than months."
I watched Gwynne speak at the Space Warfighting Industry Forum yesterday.
The 72 planes of Starlink satellites will still be in beta for a while.
Hopefully we get Starship to orbit this year.
COTS put SpaceX on the map.
SpaceX invested $1.5 - $1.6B into development of F9 & Dragon.
3.5 weeks to refurbish a booster today.
It cost $1M to re-deck the barge (she did not say ASDS) after each landing failure.
With respect to Starship full reusability: I don’t know if we will ever get there.
If built in Hawthorne, it would cost $8M to truck Starship to Long Beach or San Pedro. That is why they’re building it at the launch site.
Working on Starship window technology…radiation resistance shield & impact resistant.
She thinks the point-to-point market is extraordinary and so does Goldman Sachs.
In the last 14 flights, there have been no non-maneuverable sats.
100,000 customers on Starlink network today with demand of 600,000.
Need to get over the chip hump and think they will in October.
Standing down on F9 Starlink launches…waiting on building more sats with newer laser terminals.
5 years from now, Starlink service should be available for almost everyone.
After her talk, she rushed out a side door and hopped in a Suburban.
Generation 2 amendment SAT-AMD-20210818-00105: FCC.report (https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-AMD-20210818-00105) / FCC (http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATAMD2021081800105&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number)
They're proposing two different configurations, depending on if Starship works in the short term or they need to keep using F9. They mention single plane deployment with Starship, and it seems 110-120 would be the plane size for those.Quotethe satellites will be somewhat larger and generate more power, enabling them to support expanded capabilities now and accommodate additional payloads in the future. The Gen2 satellites will have enhanced reliability by building upon the design and operational history of the current deployment. While SpaceX was able to work extensively with the astronomy community to mitigate the reflectivity on its first-generation satellites, it has now taken that experience to design less reflective satellites from the beginning.
...
Both Configurations 1 and 2 will operate within an expanded altitude range of -50km to +70km. This increased altitude range provides the operational flexibility needed in light of the denser atmospheric conditions in which Starlink operates, helping to account for the significant impact of solar cycles.
"somewhat larger"... If they use the full payload capability of a single Starship launch to populate a single plane of 110-120 satellites, then each satellite would be around 1 metric ton, about 4 times heavier than the current one.
I haven't looked at other companies' FCC filings, I assume it's not a requirement for them to disclose satellite mass? SpaceX probably wants to keep this under wraps to avoid giving detractors ammunition to generate more FUD.
When Falcon 9 starts launching polar Starlink missions from Vandenberg, how many sats will it carry? I don't think it'll be 60 because of a mass penalty when launching to polar orbit.Gunter's Skyrocket.de lists 40 as a calculated guess.
Could it be in the mid-40s range?
With the naming of the VSFB launch being "Starlink 2-1" is it safe to assume this is the first batch of StarLink v2.0's?
SpaceX have released a bit more info on the 'automatic' collision avoidance that some people have been confused about. As suspected, what they mean is that they rely on conjunction warnings generated by SpaceForce radar tracking which are uploaded to the satellites
The 'automatic' part is that the sat then decides by itself if it needs to manuever. And there is no check, I belive, that the manuever won't accidentally put it in the way of another satellite (acceptable at today's satellite population levels but maybe not in the future)
Another item from the Starlink presentation on expected decay times from failed satellites. We are starting to be able to check this from actual data - Starlink 43 failed 2.2 years ago at 480 km and is now at 420 km. I suspect their figures may be optimistic.
100k terminals shipped!
twitter.com/planet4589/status/1429525312577183746QuoteSpaceX have released a bit more info on the 'automatic' collision avoidance that some people have been confused about. As suspected, what they mean is that they rely on conjunction warnings generated by SpaceForce radar tracking which are uploaded to the satellites
Collision Avoidance: Starlink-on-Starlink
• Starlink constellation orbits are “passively” deconflicted
– Each satellite gets assigned a station-keeping slot.
– Every slot is passively deconflicted (via orbit design) against all other slots in the constellation.
– While satellites remain in their station-keeping slots (via station-keeping burns) they are guaranteed to avoid conflicts with other Starlinks that are also in their slots.
– The “Active” collision avoidance system is the second line of defense.
• The vast majority of Starlink collision avoidance maneuvers are against orbital debris, or 3rd party satellites; not other Starlinks
Plans by Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to launch thousands of satellites into orbit are forcing an industry that’s traditionally wary of mergers to prepare for consolidation.
The billions of dollars that Musk is pouring into his Starlink broadband internet service are skewing the economics of space for companies like SES SA, the world’s second-biggest satellite operator by sales. The growth of streaming over fiber optic networks threatens another of their mainstays -- satellite TV.
“I’m sure everyone’s talking to everyone,” said SES Chief Executive Officer Steve Collar. Space is “essentially a fixed-cost industry, so the scale that’s generated from consolidation can be important financially. And obviously we’ve also seen some disruptors coming into the industry. That can also be a catalyst,” he said in an interview.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1429907171639103489Quote100k terminals shipped!
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1429907171639103489Quote100k terminals shipped!
$10 million a month revenue and growing daily.
This is a good start. I imagine they are throttling the ramp up until they manage to get the customer antenna's cheap enough.
At that point I'd expect the terminal shipments to be unconstrained and we then see real growth in users.
Plus 550K subscribers is not even all the current and orders existing now 700K. So just filling the existing order as fast as they can is likely to result in the subscriber total to reach the 700K value before the end of year 2023.
<snip>Got some bad news. If any of the chips in the UT come from Malaysia. The supply situation with all chips produce there is chaotic. Apparently COVID outbreaks have force the shutdown of many chip fabs. So what ever chip supply that is in the logistics pipeline might be all there is until Q1 2022 if the situation in Malaysia doesn't get worse.
The real question is what is the current terminal build/ship rate? They are at 100K now so when did they achieve 90K? That will give insight into near term build rates until the new UT (User Terminal) factory in Austin Texas starts producing UTs.
<snip>
The real question is what is the current terminal build/ship rate? They are at 100K now so when did they achieve 90K? That will give insight into near term build rates until the new UT (User Terminal) factory in Austin Texas starts producing UTs.
Do we have a production start date for the new UT factory?
Gwynne said as Space Symposium that chip shortages have affected introduction of their new user terminal design but they should have it later this year, about half the cost of previous version. Could halve the cost again in the next year. All of the future Starlinks will have lasers. Getting the satellites built with the lasers has been a reason for the launch pause. Next launch in about 3 weeks.
Gwynne said as Space Symposium that chip shortages have affected introduction of their new user terminal design but they should have it later this year, about half the cost of previous version. Could halve the cost again in the next year. All of the future Starlinks will have lasers. Getting the satellites built with the lasers has been a reason for the launch pause. Next launch in about 3 weeks.
Gongora, are you saying the next launch in 3 weeks time will have lasers? Because previously Gwynne said the version 1.5’s will launch this year with more power but that lasers will only be added next year to version 2 sats.
If that (laser links) has been moved forward that’s excellent news.
Gwynne said as Space Symposium that chip shortages have affected introduction of their new user terminal design but they should have it later this year, about half the cost of previous version. Could halve the cost again in the next year. All of the future Starlinks will have lasers. Getting the satellites built with the lasers has been a reason for the launch pause. Next launch in about 3 weeks.
Gongora, are you saying the next launch in 3 weeks time will have lasers? Because previously Gwynne said the version 1.5’s will launch this year with more power but that lasers will only be added next year to version 2 sats.
If that (laser links) has been moved forward that’s excellent news.
You're misremembering something. The v1.5 sats have always been the lasers.
There was a huge Starlink service outage today. Indications both from downdector.com and the reddit forum suggest that the impact was worldwide (at the least, seen in USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK...)
There was a huge Starlink service outage today. Indications both from downdector.com and the reddit forum suggest that the impact was worldwide (at the least, seen in USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK...)
this means that the StarLink network has a single control center that manages the gateways and satellites. Moreover, this is not a dynamic online management, but the planing of a schedule according to which the network operates for a certain period of time, for example, 15 seconds
There was a huge Starlink service outage today. Indications both from downdetector.com and the reddit forum suggest that the impact was worldwide (at the least, seen in USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK...)A couple of weeks ago, the entire state of Michigan had an inclement weather related internet outage that lasted more than 3 days... Would have happily traded that for 20 minutes...
Here in Albuquerque, NM, USA the outage started between 6:20 and 6:25 a.m. MDT, and was initially out for about 20 minutes straight, with some subsequent recurrences.
[edited long after posting to correct typo in the outage website name]
Unsubstantiated.There was a huge Starlink service outage today. Indications both from downdector.com and the reddit forum suggest that the impact was worldwide (at the least, seen in USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK...)
this means that the StarLink network has a single control center that manages the gateways and satellites. Moreover, this is not a dynamic online management, but the planing of a schedule according to which the network operates for a certain period of time, for example, 15 seconds
Management plane is of course almost invariably centralised in any sizeable, modern network. And there are many ways where that can cause a network-wide outage, by pushing an incorrect configuration or a buggy software update to all of the nodes. (Normally you would test such things on a small subset of the nodes first, before deploying the change to the entire network. However, sometimes people make mistakes and miss that. Or the problem is only triggered beyond a certain scale.)
I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but I don't see any evidence for you being right either. The fact that the entire network broke says nothing about how distributed the control plane is, or how autonomous the nodes are.
There was a huge Starlink service outage today. Indications both from downdetector.com and the reddit forum suggest that the impact was worldwide (at the least, seen in USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK...)A couple of weeks ago, the entire state of Michigan had an inclement weather related internet outage that lasted more than 3 days... Would have happily traded that for 20 minutes...
Here in Albuquerque, NM, USA the outage started between 6:20 and 6:25 a.m. MDT, and was initially out for about 20 minutes straight, with some subsequent recurrences.
[edited long after posting to correct typo in the outage website name]
<snip>Got some bad news. If any of the chips in the UT come from Malaysia. The supply situation with all chips produce there is chaotic. Apparently COVID outbreaks have force the shutdown of many chip fabs. So what ever chip supply that is in the logistics pipeline might be all there is until Q1 2022 if the situation in Malaysia doesn't get worse.
The real question is what is the current terminal build/ship rate? They are at 100K now so when did they achieve 90K? That will give insight into near term build rates until the new UT (User Terminal) factory in Austin Texas starts producing UTs.
<snip>
P.S. The Malaysia government recently resigned. The worsening COVID crisis is bad enough that the Malaysian monarchy have appointed an interim prime minister to head the government until elections can be held.
There was a huge Starlink service outage today. Indications both from downdetector.com and the reddit forum suggest that the impact was worldwide (at the least, seen in USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK...)A couple of weeks ago, the entire state of Michigan had an inclement weather related internet outage that lasted more than 3 days... Would have happily traded that for 20 minutes...
Here in Albuquerque, NM, USA the outage started between 6:20 and 6:25 a.m. MDT, and was initially out for about 20 minutes straight, with some subsequent recurrences.
[edited long after posting to correct typo in the outage website name]
There was a huge Starlink service outage today. Indications both from downdetector.com and the reddit forum suggest that the impact was worldwide (at the least, seen in USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK...)A couple of weeks ago, the entire state of Michigan had an inclement weather related internet outage that lasted more than 3 days... Would have happily traded that for 20 minutes...
Here in Albuquerque, NM, USA the outage started between 6:20 and 6:25 a.m. MDT, and was initially out for about 20 minutes straight, with some subsequent recurrences.
[edited long after posting to correct typo in the outage website name]
There was a huge Starlink service outage today. Indications both from downdetector.com and the reddit forum suggest that the impact was worldwide (at the least, seen in USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK...)A couple of weeks ago, the entire state of Michigan had an inclement weather related internet outage that lasted more than 3 days... Would have happily traded that for 20 minutes...
Here in Albuquerque, NM, USA the outage started between 6:20 and 6:25 a.m. MDT, and was initially out for about 20 minutes straight, with some subsequent recurrences.
[edited long after posting to correct typo in the outage website name]
I probably have more than twenty minutes a day downtime right now on old fashioned satellite (thunderstorm season). But nontheless downtime is an important metric to keep up with, and as I said I don't mind hearing about it just because it's Starlink.
I'm particularly interested in rain fade (see above thunderstorm season), and as I understand it the newer lower power antennas are more prone to issues there. But happily so far it still seems to translate into reduced bandwidth instead of the complete cutout that my current satellite gives me.
There was a huge Starlink service outage today. Indications both from downdetector.com and the reddit forum suggest that the impact was worldwide (at the least, seen in USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK...)A couple of weeks ago, the entire state of Michigan had an inclement weather related internet outage that lasted more than 3 days... Would have happily traded that for 20 minutes...
Here in Albuquerque, NM, USA the outage started between 6:20 and 6:25 a.m. MDT, and was initially out for about 20 minutes straight, with some subsequent recurrences.
[edited long after posting to correct typo in the outage website name]
3 days of Starlink outages? I have been using it as my primary internet in Michigan, and didn't have anything like that.There was a huge Starlink service outage today. Indications both from downdetector.com and the reddit forum suggest that the impact was worldwide (at the least, seen in USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK...)A couple of weeks ago, the entire state of Michigan had an inclement weather related internet outage that lasted more than 3 days... Would have happily traded that for 20 minutes...
Here in Albuquerque, NM, USA the outage started between 6:20 and 6:25 a.m. MDT, and was initially out for about 20 minutes straight, with some subsequent recurrences.
[edited long after posting to correct typo in the outage website name]
I probably have more than twenty minutes a day downtime right now on old fashioned satellite (thunderstorm season). But nontheless downtime is an important metric to keep up with, and as I said I don't mind hearing about it just because it's Starlink.
I'm particularly interested in rain fade (see above thunderstorm season), and as I understand it the newer lower power antennas are more prone to issues there. But happily so far it still seems to translate into reduced bandwidth instead of the complete cutout that my current satellite gives me.
It does seem to drop during intense thunderstorms. I've had outages of 10-15 minutes about once a month this summer while storms blow though. Some of those might have been due to short power outages resetting the dish or router, though. I don't have them on a UPS and big storms often make the power blink for a second or two.
Outside of storms, my uptime is 99.9+%. I'm down well less than a minute per day, on average.
>
>
It does seem to drop during intense thunderstorms. I've had outages of 10-15 minutes about once a month this summer while storms blow though. Some of those might have been due to short power outages resetting the dish or router, though. I don't have them on a UPS and big storms often make the power blink for a second or two.
Outside of storms, my uptime is 99.9+%. I'm down well less than a minute per day, on average.
I read Moelzer's post to mean it was a provider other than Starlink that went offline in Michigan. I could be wrong though.
>
It seems bad weather is always going to be the bane of us satellite users, no matter the service. I will say that my Viasat is so sensitive that I can lose connection while the sun is still shining, but if I look outside I can see the cloud to the south that the dish is pointing right at. Hopefully Starlink will be a little better than that.
Former Navy intelligence officer @LylaKohistany on CNN:
"Frankly, I would love it if SpaceX would just flood Afghanistan with Starlink so that there is a way for us to maintain communication with our Afghan partners."
Sure, they just need to find a friendly neighboring country who wants to help the US against Taliban so they can deploy a downlink station.
Our satellites launching in next few months have inter-satellite laser links, so no local downlink needed. Probably active in 4 to 6 months.
How does transmitting into a country without a local downlink work on the regulatory side?
They can shake their fist at the sky
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1433109248007933960QuoteHow does transmitting into a country without a local downlink work on the regulatory side?
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1433123220643717120QuoteThey can shake their fist at the sky
Crowd-sourced Starlink performance stats https://starlinkstatus.space Overall and by ground station
>
That's kinda bold to say for Elon, but the implication there is anywhere Tesla isn't operating significantly also has no related retaliatory regulatory risk as well. So Starlink can beam just fine directly into Afghanistan or Cuba, but most definitely will only use local gateways within China or Russia.
>
<snip>
Hrm, how will that work out for coastal areas? If some fisherman goes out beyond the 12 mile limit, they are in international waters, they torrent a bunch of movies/ISO's/PDF's over Starlink, shut down and head back to port, and sell their downloaded data to local sneakernets. Certainly would need a US registered Starlink dish, but I'm sure some NGO (or the CIA) can provide...
<snip>
Hrm, how will that work out for coastal areas? If some fisherman goes out beyond the 12 mile limit, they are in international waters, they torrent a bunch of movies/ISO's/PDF's over Starlink, shut down and head back to port, and sell their downloaded data to local sneakernets. Certainly would need a US registered Starlink dish, but I'm sure some NGO (or the CIA) can provide...
No. Said fisherman will need a one time key code to operate the ground terminal for a definite amount of time for every session. The dish will likely be without any identifying serial numbers or country of origin markings. Along with priority sole unlimited access to a single Starlink comsat per session.
Is there any real difference beyond the lasers, do they need more onboard processing for packet routing or were they built with sufficient capacity prior to addition of laser interlinks.
Processing is not an issue. Lasers links alleviate ground station constraints, so data can go from say Sydney to London through space, which is ~40% faster speed of light than fiber & shorter path.
Also, no need for ground stations everywhere. Arctic will have great bandwidth!
I'm particularly interested in rain fade (see above thunderstorm season), and as I understand it the newer lower power antennas are more prone to issues there. But happily so far it still seems to translate into reduced bandwidth instead of the complete cutout that my current satellite gives me.
They can shake their fist at the skythere are 2 aspects
Does the legal infrastructure actually exist for ITU and the FCC to actually force SpaceX to comply?ITU (and consequently FCC) can react on complains of their partner in respective country. Their afghan partner is dead.
I'd expect that that enforcing compliance would be solely up to a local regulator, for example by making it illegal to sell the service in the country.
Generally, if SpaceX ever wants to have its own spectrum worldwide, it should err on the side of caution and not transmit. The process by which Iridium obtained its spectrum is instructive. Lots of horse trading with small countries for their votes. Any whiff of Starlink transmitting into countries without permission would make these types of things impossible.
Generally, if SpaceX ever wants to have its own spectrum worldwide, it should err on the side of caution and not transmit. The process by which Iridium obtained its spectrum is instructive. Lots of horse trading with small countries for their votes. Any whiff of Starlink transmitting into countries without permission would make these types of things impossible.
Not if the DoD wants them to do it. This region of the world they're not going to be pressured not to do it. What Elon was hinting at is they probably already asked them to do it on first or second launch.
The Taliban are being sponsored by Pakistan, after all.Let's not go there please.
The receive side is different, obviously. SpaceX can determine who should receive and probably would not turn on receive for anybody but the DoD.Agree. The situation already exists with DoD teams (spec-ops or whatever) communicating using portable or semi-portable devices in hostile or even friendly territory, some of which are sat-based. Not as if DoD requests clearance from local regulators for such activities--in general they would not and do not.
SpaceX would transmit. And the Taliban would shake their fists at the sky.As I expect they do today at any number of other sat-based communications options. Starlink does not fundamentally change anything, other than maybe being more accessible and higher bandwidth.
Does the legal infrastructure actually exist for ITU and the FCC to actually force SpaceX to comply?
I'd expect that that enforcing compliance would be solely up to a local regulator, for example by making it illegal to sell the service in the country.
twitter.com/djsnm/status/1433112911094845440QuoteIs there any real difference beyond the lasers, do they need more onboard processing for packet routing or were they built with sufficient capacity prior to addition of laser interlinks.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1433320085519618048QuoteProcessing is not an issue. Lasers links alleviate ground station constraints, so data can go from say Sydney to London through space, which is ~40% faster speed of light than fiber & shorter path.
Also, no need for ground stations everywhere. Arctic will have great bandwidth!
twitter.com/djsnm/status/1433112911094845440
Processing is not an issue. Lasers links alleviate ground station constraints, so data can go from say Sydney to London through space, which is ~40% faster speed of light than fiber & shorter path.
twitter.com/djsnm/status/1433112911094845440
Processing is not an issue. Lasers links alleviate ground station constraints, so data can go from say Sydney to London through space, which is ~40% faster speed of light than fiber & shorter path.
It seems to me that Elon forgot that for this the satellites must line up strictly in one line between London and Sydney. And stand there as if nailed to the sky ..
:-)
I have noticed that my obstructions have increased quite a bit lately and also noticed some slow downs. I snapped some screen shots and sent it to support and hey were kind enough to actually chat about it and fill me in on what is going on, so I thought I would share it with reddit.
Outages: I live near a canyon wall near Moab, UT. The wall is far enough that I can get most of the clear sky with perhaps 2% of my FOV filled by that wall. Over the summer, Starlink had updated the firmware and I noticed that my obstructions went to zero. I went months without any obstructions. However recently I have seen an increase in obstructions, some of them lasting up to 19 seconds in length. Starlink stated that they moved some satellites and recently sent down an update that uses a part of the sky with satellites that weren't used before on the antenna. They said this fixed a lot of the obstructions for many people, however it created a problem of increased obstructions for many others. So they said they are seeing a shift of people who had no obstructions now have some, and vice versa for others. They said they are closely monitoring the situation and will hopefully rectify it in the near future so it works right for everyone. They confirmed this as a high priority.
FOV: I asked them about the 25->40 FOV that is being rumored. They said this is still on the docket for later this year but do not have a specific date on that. They said some of the issues we have been experiencing regarding obstructions should be rectified significantly regarding tightening the FOV when this rolls out. They said this is dependent on the next roll out of satellites coming over the next month or two and moving the other sats into different positions.
Slower speeds: As of late, many of us have been seeing slower speed. I personally noted an average of about 160Mb this year to 60-70Mb currently with a spike here and there for 160. My days of 380MB spikes are long gone. I asked them whats going on with this as they are beginning to get into WISP territory and the $99/month may be a tough swallow when some WISPs are beginning to offer 50-100Mb for less. They acknowledged this as a risk and they expect average speeds to increase over the next month or so. They said they had to initiate some throttling on speeds as they bring on more people while moving that sats into different positions because they have concern about over subscribing. They said they expect to put up more sats this year and they will reopen the speeds at that point. They said this was all part of the software upgrades while moving the sats. They said its been stressful for everyone including them and to be patient.
2021-22 customer rollout: I am currently looking for moving from my primary home on the front range of CO to either Cave Creek, AZ or Durango, CO. The houses we have looked at do not have good net and was looking into Starlink. I asked them about getting into some of these areas and length of time to get service. They said they have an algorithm based on when you get in line and it moves based on cancellations and those who have it and cancel service. They said its a sophisticated system that tracks this and there is no ability to get bumped or even see where you are at in line. They even said their friends and family plans for employees do not even allow them to bump themselves of friends/family ahead in the line. They confirmed each cell has about 300 users give or take a few numbers and they expect to increase these numbers per cell as they put up more sats. This is why they have stated mid-to-late 2021 for many because they apparently have a plan to put a lot more sats up this fall/winter. However for those with full cells and long lines... your wait will be a lot longer. They said one of their biggest concerns is over subscription and agreed that it would be a death knell if they do over subscribe. I found it refreshing to see a company concerned about that. They said the best course of action is to get in line, hold your place and wait. As more sats go up, they will open up more and more slots.
I am sure much of this info may already be known or shared to a degree. However, I thought I would give the details of my discussion with them today as I found it very enlightening to get it from the directly. I hope this help some people who had similar questions as me.
I've seen a lot in the movies.I don’t know if you are joking or not.twitter.com/djsnm/status/1433112911094845440
Processing is not an issue. Lasers links alleviate ground station constraints, so data can go from say Sydney to London through space, which is ~40% faster speed of light than fiber & shorter path.
It seems to me that Elon forgot that for this the satellites must line up strictly in one line between London and Sydney. And stand there as if nailed to the sky ..
:-)
Seriously, here’s a good semi technical vid explaining inter sat links both why and how they will have lower latency over very long global paths
There's only a *minimum* spot size, dictated by the wavelength and the size of the optics. They can choose to open the beam up, obviously at the expense of power.I've seen a lot in the movies.I don’t know if you are joking or not.twitter.com/djsnm/status/1433112911094845440
Processing is not an issue. Lasers links alleviate ground station constraints, so data can go from say Sydney to London through space, which is ~40% faster speed of light than fiber & shorter path.
It seems to me that Elon forgot that for this the satellites must line up strictly in one line between London and Sydney. And stand there as if nailed to the sky ..
:-)
Seriously, here’s a good semi technical vid explaining inter sat links both why and how they will have lower latency over very long global paths
The spot size of the laser beam at a distance of 4000 km is 111 m. When the laser communication is organized inside the satellites in one plane, you have time to direct the satellite beam to establish communication and then correct the exact position of the satellite, preventing it from leaving the spot. If you want to switch beam to another satellite , then any tilt of the satellite even by a hundredth of a degree (due to the rotation of the Ka-band antenna, solar panels, etc.) will lead to the fact that the beam will not fall into another satellite and the connection will be interrupted.
Dude your fathers had solved this problem 50 years ago when they started to use photo registration devices for space and air research. You steer laser beam with mirror suspended on thermocouple or any other EMF related device.I've seen a lot in the movies.I don’t know if you are joking or not.twitter.com/djsnm/status/1433112911094845440
Processing is not an issue. Lasers links alleviate ground station constraints, so data can go from say Sydney to London through space, which is ~40% faster speed of light than fiber & shorter path.
It seems to me that Elon forgot that for this the satellites must line up strictly in one line between London and Sydney. And stand there as if nailed to the sky ..
:-)
Seriously, here’s a good semi technical vid explaining inter sat links both why and how they will have lower latency over very long global paths
The spot size of the laser beam at a distance of 4000 km is 111 m. When the laser communication is organized inside the satellites in one plane, you have time to direct the satellite beam to establish communication and then correct the exact position of the satellite, preventing it from leaving the spot. If you want to switch beam to another satellite , then any tilt of the satellite even by a hundredth of a degree (due to the rotation of the Ka-band antenna, solar panels, etc.) will lead to the fact that the beam will not fall into another satellite and the connection will be interrupted.
Yes my CD Walkman back in 1984 had solved the problem of lasers tracking targets in a chaotic motion environment.
...
Dude your fathers had solved this problem 50 years ago when they started to use photo registration devices for space and air research. You steer laser beam with mirror suspended on thermocouple or any other EMF related device.
It appears SpaceX’s Starlink was used by the local Louisiana government in the aftermath of Hurricane Ida:
Thanks to @elonmusk and @SpaceX for getting us connected port #hurricaneida Communications is key in our recovery. @SpaceXStarlink
the devices in the realm of "Light-beam oscillograph". "Светолучевые осциллографы" The soviets used them as registration devices in pretty much all space related tests up to the end of 70s. The sensitivity in the last devices was ~10-20kHz (I am talking about registration in-range sensitivity. On photo-paper). They had "passive" (suspension) and active (compensation) subsystems using different EMF related variants.Dude your fathers had solved this problem 50 years ago when they started to use photo registration devices for space and air research. You steer laser beam with mirror suspended on thermocouple or any other EMF related device.
Please explicate. Was working on similar less than "50 years ago" and have no idea what you are referring to with respect to "thermocouple or any other EMF related device"? Granted I have been out of the game a while, but last I checked, fast response optics would (still) be piezo-coupled, no "thermocouple or any other EMF related device" involved.
So link up may be measured on just a couple of seconds.Yes! You are absolutely right
Good laser targeting systems use very similar (to identical) mechanical subsysems.Yes! Absolutely agree! But small question: How long does it take for them to turn mirror 90 degrees?
Probably a fraction of that. COTS galvo's do tens of kpps (kilo points per second). A bespoke galvo should be faster than that.Good laser targeting systems use very similar (to identical) mechanical subsysems.Yes! Absolutely agree! But small question: How long does it take for them to turn mirror 90 degrees?
0,5..1 second?
Good laser targeting systems use very similar (to identical) mechanical subsysems.Yes! Absolutely agree! But small question: How long does it take for them to turn mirror 90 degrees?
0,5..1 second?
My understanding is that there are four lasers:
I see on this photo only one for one side of sats .. Total is 2
[SpaceX CFO Bret] Johnsen: we’re producing 5,000 Starlink dishes a week, and will have “multiples of that” in coming months. New, lower cost unit coming out later this fall. #SATShow
15kHz=90* freedom.(-45--+45 degrees),Good laser targeting systems use very similar (to identical) mechanical subsysems.Yes! Absolutely agree! But small question: How long does it take for them to turn mirror 90 degrees?
0,5..1 second?
The scope of how fast Starlink is expanding continues to keep surprising me even when I should know better. The revenue for the complete year of 2022 from subscriptions is likely to be >$500M. And for 2023 >$1B. It will continue to expand at about $500M or more per year. Such that Starlink will become cash positive sometime in 2024 even at deploying over 2000 sats in a year, more Gateways, other operating expenses...
Added: If the build out rate and number of UTs operating keep this up. By 2030 there would likely be >5M subscribers and >$5B/yr in revenue. The normal rule of thumb as to the valuation of just Starlink as a stand alone business in 2030 since it would double in size over the next 10 years would be $75B.
The #SATShow in DC is hosting a panel on satellite connectivity, with:
– SpaceX VP Jonathan Hofeller
– Facebook connectivity lead Brian Barritt
– SES CEO Steve Collar
– ST Engineering iDirect CEO Kevin Steen
SpaceX VP Jonathan Hofeller says "you can look through Reddit" and see the use cases of Starlink, including connecting schools and community centers – an "outpouring of folks that, even pre-pandemic, were being left behind." #SATShow @SATELLITEDC
SpaceX VP Hofeller:
"I think SpaceX has a track record of being transparent about all the stuff we're working on, good and bad. We were the first to put rocket prices on the web, which was a huge step forward in transparency in the aerospace industry." #SATShow @SATELLITEDC
SpaceX VP Hofeller, on the benefits of vertical integration and building Starlink equipment in-house:
1 - Cost optimization
2 - Speed, as "we're moving extremely fast"
3 - Quality control
#SATShow @SATELLITEDC
Facebook's Brian Barritt – on Apple's iPhone 13 possibly featuring emergency satellite connectivity – says that similar to the adoption to 4G phones, which were thicker and had two chipsets, there will be a "convergence" in the years ahead.
#SATShow @SATELLITEDC $FB $AAPL
SpaceX VP Hofeller adds that "I think it's an exciting prospect ... certainly great for the satellite industry to work with the mobile industry even closer." #SATShow
SpaceX VP Hofeller says government subsidies for broadband infrastructure can't "stifle innovation" and points to the company's relationship with NASA, as a customer, as a structure that "works really well" to get the "product that they wanted."
#SATShow @SATELLITEDC
SpaceX VP Hofeller says cloud computing "requires extremely high bandwidth in every location" and as Starlink gets "more and more throughput up there, that's just going to further enable cloud" use cases.
#SATShow @SATELLITEDC
They may resemble the larger SDA Transport Layer satellites SpaceX have won a Tranche 0 contract for, which are substantially larger (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47145.msg2147001#msg2147001) than the current Starlinks.We still don't know whether they will maker bigger Starship-sized versions. Doubling the number of satellites per launch, with each of them more capable, and using a cheaper rocket seems like a good compromise.
We know the 2nd gen satellites (in the 30K constellation) are larger (just not how much)Quote"In addition, this amendment reflects improvements in the design of Gen2 satellites themselves. For example, the satellites will be somewhat larger and generate more power, enabling them to support expanded capabilities now and accommodate additional payloads in the future."
SpaceX is preparing to resume Starlink launches as early as next week, with the Group 2-1 launch from Vandenberg, California, NET September 13.
NSF's Danny Lentz gives an update on the initial constellation and upcoming deployments:
Satellites with “lasers” in “space” [strokes white cat]
In summary, the most important findings of our experiments are:
• An average download throughput of approximately 170 Mbit/s and a maximum download throughput of approximately 330 Mbit/s could be reached in a time window of about 7 hours.
• An average upload throughput of approximately 17 Mbit/s and a maximum upload throughput of approximately 60 Mbit/s could be reached in a time window of about 15 hours.
• The observed latencies to a server in Vienna vary widely between less than 30 milliseconds and over 2 seconds.
• In approximately 98% of the time, the latency is below 90 milliseconds and in approximately 77% of the time, the latency is below 50 milliseconds.
• During a continuous ping test (one ping per second) for nearly 7 days, a downtime of 2.4% could be observed. This percentage is expected to decrease when reducing the ping intervals to less than 1 second.
• Steady continuous video streaming via YouTube delivers a satisfactory experience. In very rare cases there might be some short interruptions of up to 4-6 seconds.
• The automatic switching between the satellites seems to follow a pre-defined timing of 15 seconds. This means that changes in latencies (for better or worse) nearly always occurs between these 15-second windows.
• No conclusive evidence for a correlation between the current satellite constellations and the observed outages could be found. This does not mean that this correlation doesn’t exist, it rather means that this topic requires further investigation.
• In an observed period of approximately 56 hours, the power consumption of the whole clientside system (router and satellite dish) was 105 Watts on average with a maximum of 190 Watts.
• Officially, Starlink Internet access is only offered in selected regions. However, we could prove that the connection also works outside these regions at four tested positions.
• The time between powering the system up and having a working Internet connection varies between 5 and 20 minutes. The factors that influence that time have not been evaluated so far.
• As far as we could observe, the public IP address assigned to a router remains the same. In our case, the address was 188.95.144.107.
Two years after the close approach of a Starlink satellite with a European Space Agency satellite alarmed some in the space industry, SpaceX says it’s working closely with a wide range of satellite operators to ensure safe space operations.
In September 2019, ESA announced it maneuvered an Earth science satellite called Aeolus when the agency determined it would pass dangerously close to a Starlink satellite. The incident was exacerbated by a breakdown in communication between ESA and SpaceX in the days leading up to the close approach.
After that incident “we went to work coordinating” with both commercial and government satellite operators, said David Goldstein, principal guidance navigation and control engineer at SpaceX, during a panel discussion at the Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies, or AMOS, Conference here Sept. 16.
when will starlink come out of beta
Next month
Starlink Analysis (https://forschung.fh-kaernten.at/roadmap-5g/files/2021/07/Starlink-Analysis.pdf), some analysis done by a German university:Quote from: Carinthia University of Applied Sciences• During a continuous ping test (one ping per second) for nearly 7 days, a downtime of 2.4% could be observed. This percentage is expected to decrease when reducing the ping intervals to less than 1 second.
Will Starlink be able to provide service for vehicles below AND above them? It’d be great to have high speed connection on orbit, finally!
Yeah. We’d use our Ka parabolics or laser links for Dragon, Starship or other spacecraft as soon as they got above cloud level.
Using Starlink, they identified the antenna’s location within about 7.7 meters. GPS, by comparison, generally identifies a device’s location within 0.3 and 5 meters. The team has used similar techniques with other low Earth orbit satellite constellations, but with less accuracy, pinpointing locations within about 23 meters, Kassas said. The team has also been working with the U.S. Air Force to pinpoint locations of high-altitude aircraft; they were able to come within 5 meters using land-based cellular signals, Kassas said.
SpaceX has some 1,700 satellites in Earth’s low orbit, meaning they circle the planet about 1,200 km from Earth’s surface. SpaceX ultimately plans to launch more than 40,000 satellites.
Kassas said as the Starlink constellation grows, so, too, will the accuracy of his team’s navigation and geo-location technique with its signals.
NASA safety advisory panel notes during a meeting that SpaceX plans to launch as many as 30,000 Starlink satellites:
"The panel has no position on the advisability of that action, but it does underscore" the lack of a formally designated lead agency for space traffic management.
"This consistently continues to be a critical safety concern – a growing safety concern – that remains unaddressed by the Congress, and it's well overdue to be acted on."
Earlier this year the pace of Starlink launches was really high.. to the point that I'm kind of surprised the date for the next one isn't public yet. Are there still logistical issues slowing it down, even though launches have started again?My impression is that laser link production is the limiting factor right now. They got enough sats to do the first launch from Vandenberg, but we will just have to see how long it takes to get enough for the second launch.
Today, TechFreedom filed an amicus brief urging the D.C. Circuit not to extend the National Environmental Policy Act into outer space.
SpaceX is seeking to become the first company to provide widespread, low-latency, reasonably priced, direct-to-consumer satellite broadband. In the order at issue here, the FCC granted SpaceX’s request to move some previously licensed satellites to a lower orbit. On appeal, a rival satellite broadband company contends that the FCC’s order failed to comply with NEPA, a procedural statute that requires the government to assess the environmental impact of “major actions”—defined broadly to include many permit approvals. Both the FCC and SpaceX contend that the FCC satisfied the statute’s requirements.
TechFreedom’s brief argues that whether the order complies with NEPA is irrelevant, because NEPA does not apply in the first place.
“American law is presumed to apply only where America is sovereign,” said James E. Dunstan, TechFreedom’s General Counsel. “America is not the sovereign of space. On the contrary, our nation has little control over what other countries do on the final frontier. Indeed, if we were to smother our satellite companies in procedural red tape, nothing would stop other nations, such as China, from steaming ahead with their own broadband satellite constellations, with far less concern for the space environment.”
“Absent a clear signal from Congress, therefore, NEPA does not apply in space,” Dunstan continued, “yet NEPA contains no such signal. On the contrary, the law says that it applies only to the ‘human environment’ and the ‘biosphere.’ The absence of a clear reference to space is especially telling when you consider the year NEPA was passed—1970. It was the height of the Space Race. We had just joined the Outer Space Treaty and landed on the Moon. Never in American history has Congress been more aware of outer space—but NEPA makes no mention of it.”
“SpaceX is doing something remarkable,” Dunstan concluded. “It is simultaneously innovating in the fields of rocketry, satellites, and broadband. And its goal—to provide affordable Internet to remote regions across the planet—is a valuable and laudable one. The D.C. Circuit should not impede the company’s progress at the behest of a business rival and its creative lawyers.”
Re: V-band
Found the FCC order https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354775A1.pdf
FCC-CIRC1811-04 , IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20170301-00027 Call Sign S2992
Grant SpaceX’s request to add the 37.5-42.0 GHz, and 47.2-50.2 GHz frequency bands to its previously authorized 4,425 satellite NGSO constellation.
• Grant SpaceX’s request to add an NGSO constellation consisting of 7,518 satellites using the 37.5-42.0 GHz and 47.2-50.2 frequency bands.
• Defer action on SpaceX’s request in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band until the Commission addresses pending issues regarding that band in the Spectrum Frontiers Proceeding.
According to the graph above, the bands have higher absorption than Ka-band.
"its user terminals will only communicate with satellites at angles of at least 35 degrees.."
So the absorption is perhaps a surmountable issue.
As RedLineTrain noted no V-band Starlinks are in service. As far as I know, the user terminals are in the Ka, Ku band. The requirement is 50% (of ~7500) in six (6) years from grant date (October 2018?), so 2024. Even with Starship at 400 Starlink per, that is 10 Starship launches. The Boca Chica environmental assessment says 5 launches per year. Seems like that is cutting it pretty tight.
While Wikipedia says V-band is per IEEE 40 to 75 gigahertz (GHz), the allocated bands are at least closer to Ka, Ku than I thought might be the case.
I’m hesitant to say that Starship development is ‘dragging on’ but as we near 2022 it seems to me that the F9 will be carrying a lot of the Starlink load for at least 1-2 more years. Maybe 3-4
So SpaceX may want to keep the ramp up on boosters, processing and launch. On both coasts.
IMO Starlink Gen1 with Starlink satellites v1.5 will only launch on Falcon 9 and will never operationally launch on Starship.
They are optimized for launch on Falcon 9 and they need to be launched into orbits that are not reachable from the Boca Chica launch site, and the 39A Starship pad is most likely more than a year away.
Starlink Gen2 on the other hand will most likely be optimized for Starship, but that is also still most likely more than a year away as it is not licensed yet.
Semi-annual constellation status report to FCC: https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=10375428
Indeed, while SpaceX is providing detailed information about the status of individual satellites, other NGSO operators do not provide the Commission or the public at large any status updates at all, even when a satellite in their system has suffered an anomaly posing much greater risk than SpaceX’s low-altitude operations. In fact, some operators that have opposed Commission oversight and transparency for their non-U.S. systems are simultaneously misrepresenting information that SpaceX has provided to explicitly campaign internationally against the Commission and U.S. operators. Other non-U.S. operators have used the Commission’s public docket to question the adequacy of SpaceX’s collision avoidance system, while privately asking to rely on SpaceX’s system to limit the risk of collision that their own system may cause.
The United States’ landmark environmental law, the National Environmental
Policy Act (“NEPA”), requires U.S. federal agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of “major federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.” The major agencies involved in space
activities or regulation generally limit their environmental reviews of space
activities, with only some consideration of terrestrial and space environmental
impacts. This review argues that NEPA and existing case law supports the
proposition that the “human environment” includes the “outer space
environment.” It reviews the historical role of space in human culture, emerging
commercial and scientific uses of space, and the potential impacts of NewSpace
activities on both the terrestrial and space environments. By examining statutory
language and legislative intent, this review finds that current agency practices
are likely not compliant with NEPA, particularly as they relate to not considering
terrestrial environmental impacts from federally-authorized space activities.
Current case law on NEPA extraterritoriality, particularly EDF v. Massey,
further supports the application of NEPA to the space environment. U.S.
spacecraft fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S., mitigating concerns
about the presumption against extraterritoriality. As NEPA is only a process
statute, including space environments are unlikely to hinder exploration or use of
space while informing the public about the full environmental impacts of human
space activities, consistent with NEPA’s original purpose.
Nothing obviously interesting jumps out with regard to failure details, the measures they took to minimize collision probability for satellites lost propulsion but still have attitude control is new. But more interesting to me is the following complaint:
Nothing obviously interesting jumps out with regard to failure details, the measures they took to minimize collision probability for satellites lost propulsion but still have attitude control is new. But more interesting to me is the following complaint:
Seriously? The complaint is nothing new. The answers to the questions are the most detailed account they've given of how they manage collision avoidance with impaired satellites and what kind of failures they've experienced.
<snip>
According to Rogozin, Starlink can also be used to deliver "purely political, and, most likely, anti-Russian content" directly to mobile phones.
<snip>
Got my Starlink kit a few days ago, and lashed the dish onto the top of my chimney. It took about 10 minutes to find a satellite and connect. Preliminary speed tests show from 50 to 200 mb/s down and 15 to 40 mb/s up. The outages are frequent but very short... so far.
I like the Starlink app's statistics reporting, showing time & duration of outages/obstructions. Unfortunately, the Starlink router is pretty primative, so I picked up a TP-Link ER605 Multi-WAN router and configured it to do automatic fallback switching to my old DSL modem, and include my existing LAN. So far, so good, time will tell. But I miss the diagnostics that the Starlink router provides.
If you are in the Seattle area I'm sorry to hear you are getting any outages at all. I would have hoped they would have good coverage at that latitude. You mentioned obstructions -- do you have trees or buildings blocking clear line of sight?
And how long are your outages?
A paper attempting to apply NEPA to space: Major Federal Actions Significantly Affecting the Quality of the Space Environment: Applying NEPA to Federal and Federally Authorized Outer Space Activities (https://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/volumes/44/2/Gilbert.pdf)Yeah, people claiming NEPA won't hinder exploration or use of space who are then simultaneously trying to use it to hinder use of space are just amazing to me.QuoteThe United States’ landmark environmental law, the National Environmental
Policy Act (“NEPA”), requires U.S. federal agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of “major federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.” The major agencies involved in space
activities or regulation generally limit their environmental reviews of space
activities, with only some consideration of terrestrial and space environmental
impacts. This review argues that NEPA and existing case law supports the
proposition that the “human environment” includes the “outer space
environment.” It reviews the historical role of space in human culture, emerging
commercial and scientific uses of space, and the potential impacts of NewSpace
activities on both the terrestrial and space environments. By examining statutory
language and legislative intent, this review finds that current agency practices
are likely not compliant with NEPA, particularly as they relate to not considering
terrestrial environmental impacts from federally-authorized space activities.
Current case law on NEPA extraterritoriality, particularly EDF v. Massey,
further supports the application of NEPA to the space environment. U.S.
spacecraft fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S., mitigating concerns
about the presumption against extraterritoriality. As NEPA is only a process
statute, including space environments are unlikely to hinder exploration or use of
space while informing the public about the full environmental impacts of human
space activities, consistent with NEPA’s original purpose.
I expect this will be weaponized and used against Starlink immediately.
Also 2nd author Monica Vidaurri is on the board of JustSpace Alliance, an anti-commercial space organization
Elon Musk was adamant.
On a call last December with Ajit Pai, the Federal Communications Commission’s chairman at the time, Mr. Musk said that if the commission considered a proposal to begin the process of opening up a certain swath of wireless frequencies for ground-based 5G service, it would pose a threat to his Starlink satellite network, according to people familiar with the discussion.
The government of Rwanda has submitted to international regulators a plan to launch 327,320 satellites into 550-640-kilometer orbits broadcasting in both L- and S-band.
The Rwandan constellation, named Cinnamon-217 and Cinnamon-937, is comprised of 27 orbital shells, with each shell except a single-plane equatorial shell made up of 12,970 satellites, bringing the total to 327,320 satellites, according to Rwandan submissions to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
The constellation will include inter-satellite links using radio frequencies.
A paper attempting to apply NEPA to space: Major Federal Actions Significantly Affecting the Quality of the Space Environment: Applying NEPA to Federal and Federally Authorized Outer Space Activities (https://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/volumes/44/2/Gilbert.pdf)No it won't. This is just one of 100s (literally) pieces written by the NASA "astrobiologists"(language corrector wants to correct this word into astrologist which ironically is very appropriate here). There exists an immense empty bubble of the "specialists" which will burst open if their "expertise" will be demanded in real applications. So they try hard, very very hard.QuoteThe United States’ landmark environmental law, the National Environmental
Policy Act (“NEPA”), requires U.S. federal agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of “major federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.” The major agencies involved in space
activities or regulation generally limit their environmental reviews of space
activities, with only some consideration of terrestrial and space environmental
impacts. This review argues that NEPA and existing case law supports the
proposition that the “human environment” includes the “outer space
environment.” It reviews the historical role of space in human culture, emerging
commercial and scientific uses of space, and the potential impacts of NewSpace
activities on both the terrestrial and space environments. By examining statutory
language and legislative intent, this review finds that current agency practices
are likely not compliant with NEPA, particularly as they relate to not considering
terrestrial environmental impacts from federally-authorized space activities.
Current case law on NEPA extraterritoriality, particularly EDF v. Massey,
further supports the application of NEPA to the space environment. U.S.
spacecraft fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S., mitigating concerns
about the presumption against extraterritoriality. As NEPA is only a process
statute, including space environments are unlikely to hinder exploration or use of
space while informing the public about the full environmental impacts of human
space activities, consistent with NEPA’s original purpose.
I expect this will be weaponized and used against Starlink immediately.
Also 2nd author Monica Vidaurri is on the board of JustSpace Alliance, an anti-commercial space organization
Our new @IEEEAccess Access paper has been published. We model the #Engineering #Economics of #LowEarthOrbit #Broadband constellations, such as #SpaceX #Starlink, #OneWeb and #BlueOrigin #Kuiper. The #IEEE Access paper is here: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx7/6287639/9312710/09568932.pdf?tp=&arnumber=9568932&isnumber=9312710&ref=aHR0cHM6Ly9pZWVleHBsb3JlLmllZWUub3JnL2RvY3VtZW50Lzk1Njg5MzI/c291cmNlPWF1dGhvcmFsZXJ0
Got my Starlink kit a few days ago, and lashed the dish onto the top of my chimney. It took about 10 minutes to find a satellite and connect. Preliminary speed tests show from 50 to 200 mb/s down and 15 to 40 mb/s up. The outages are frequent but very short... so far.
I like the Starlink app's statistics reporting, showing time & duration of outages/obstructions. Unfortunately, the Starlink router is pretty primative, so I picked up a TP-Link ER605 Multi-WAN router and configured it to do automatic fallback switching to my old DSL modem, and include my existing LAN. So far, so good, time will tell. But I miss the diagnostics that the Starlink router provides.
QuoteOur new @IEEEAccess Access paper has been published. We model the #Engineering #Economics of #LowEarthOrbit #Broadband constellations, such as #SpaceX #Starlink, #OneWeb and #BlueOrigin #Kuiper. The #IEEE Access paper is here: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx7/6287639/9312710/09568932.pdf?tp=&arnumber=9568932&isnumber=9312710&ref=aHR0cHM6Ly9pZWVleHBsb3JlLmllZWUub3JnL2RvY3VtZW50Lzk1Njg5MzI/c291cmNlPWF1dGhvcmFsZXJ0
The Federal Communications Commission this week urged a court to back the FCC's approval of SpaceX Starlink satellite launches against a lawsuit filed by Viasat and Dish.
With oral arguments scheduled for December 3, final briefs were filed on Tuesday by the FCC, Viasat, Dish, and SpaceX. Judges at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit previously rejected Viasat's motion for a stay that would have halted SpaceX's ongoing launches of low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites pending the resolution of the lawsuit. Judges found that Viasat failed to show that it is likely to win its case alleging that the FCC improperly approved the satellite launches. Judges said at the time that Viasat did not meet "the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review" but granted a motion to expedite the appeal.
At this time Starlink IS Spacex, not even separated by a parent-subsidiary structure.this is no longer the case
I realize that "a contract is a contract, but only among Ferengi " , but how does it work that Viasat is suing a Future launch provider? At this time Starlink IS Spacex, not even separated by a parent-subsidiary structure.
Do we know or have knowledgeable guesses on the timing of the court's decision?
Is the refusal of a stay prejudicial against the Viacom position? Is it a possible appeals basis?
...snip.... Elon seems unlikely to hold a grudge like that - their money is good regardless.Ahh, but will Viacom's money be good going forward? I see Viacom's business as low hanging fruit for Starlink. Perhaps not applicable to the Viasat-3 launch, but this decade probably.
...snip.... Elon seems unlikely to hold a grudge like that - their money is good regardless.Ahh, but will Viacom's money be good going forward? I see Viacom's business as low hanging fruit for Starlink. Perhaps not applicable to the Viasat-3 launch, but this decade probably.
At this time Starlink IS Spacex, not even separated by a parent-subsidiary structure.this is no longer the case
Delaware registered Starlink Services LLC
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1030912587048/Starlink%20Services%20LLC%20ETC%20Application%20Florida%20Amendment%20(Final).pdf
Starlink is a wholly owned subsidiary of Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
I made the [false ] statement that number of corporate separations between is 0.At this time Starlink IS Spacex, not even separated by a parent-subsidiary structure.this is no longer the case
Delaware registered Starlink Services LLC
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1030912587048/Starlink%20Services%20LLC%20ETC%20Application%20Florida%20Amendment%20(Final).pdf
Read further on, in the Florida PSC attachment:QuoteStarlink is a wholly owned subsidiary of Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
SpaceX has updated their https://www.starlink.com/ website (now multiple languages are available) and some new and updated renders were added.
Starlink exits beta, but "silicon shortages have delayed production."
If you ordered Starlink broadband service and don't receive your "Dishy McFlatface" satellite dish any time soon, the global chip shortage may be one reason why.
"Silicon shortages have delayed production which has impacted our ability to fulfill orders. Please visit your Account page for the most recent estimate on when you can expect your order to be fulfilled," SpaceX said in an FAQ on the Starlink support website. The language was added to the Starlink website on Thursday night, according to a PCMag article.
Starlink has apparently just exited its beta status. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said in September that it would emerge from beta in October, and the word "beta" was deleted from descriptions on the Starlink homepage late last week. The website was also updated to advertise "download speeds between 100Mbps and 200Mbps and latency as low as 20ms in most locations," an improvement over the previously stated "50Mbps to 150Mbps and latency from 20ms to 40ms in most locations."
But the move from beta to general availability doesn't necessarily coincide with widespread availability. PCMag also pointed out that expected shipment times for Starlink have been pushed to late 2022 or early 2023 in additional parts of the US. The Starlink website reports expected service times of "early to mid 2022" in other areas.
SpaceX has updated their https://www.starlink.com/ website (now multiple languages are available) and some new and updated renders were added.
Uh, is that overall shot of the sat showing only two end lasers and one side laser on the top? So only 3 lasercomm terminals?
SpaceX has updated their https://www.starlink.com/ website (now multiple languages are available) and some new and updated renders were added.
Uh, is that overall shot of the sat showing only two end lasers and one side laser on the top? So only 3 lasercomm terminals?
Huh. I only see 3 as well. I wonder if the fourth one could be hiding under (or above, depending on your frame of reference) the dark visor next to the compression fitting on the long edge.
If you had the ability to yaw the attitude 180ş on alternate birds in each plane, you could probably get away with only three ISLs. You could then route traffic to either of the neighboring planes, even though you might have to hop forward or backward one bird in the current plane before doing so, if your long-edge laser was pointed in the wrong direction.
But this would imply that the solar panels would have to rotate about their long axes, I think. We know they're capable of folding flat into "open book" mode, so maybe this isn't completely implausible?
Another question: Are the flaps to either side of the long-edge compression fitting all that remains of the "visors"?
Huh. I only see 3 as well. I wonder if the fourth one could be hiding under (or above, depending on your frame of reference) the dark visor next to the compression fitting on the long edge.
If you had the ability to yaw the attitude 180ş on alternate birds in each plane, you could probably get away with only three ISLs. You could then route traffic to either of the neighboring planes, even though you might have to hop forward or backward one bird in the current plane before doing so, if your long-edge laser was pointed in the wrong direction.
But this would imply that the solar panels would have to rotate about their long axes, I think. We know they're capable of folding flat into "open book" mode, so maybe this isn't completely implausible?
Another question: Are the flaps to either side of the long-edge compression fitting all that remains of the "visors"?
Could it be a move so that sats in the same plane alternate between left and right ISL's? That would be a big cost/mass reduction for what should be a relatively minor operational complication (retargeting the side ISL when near the earth's poles). Would that substantially increase the wear and tear on the side lasercomm beam director motors, over a 4 ISL configuration though? Or would good handoff planning between all 3 (or 4) reduce the fast pointing changes incurred at max latitude?
But wait a second, the illustrated thruster is on the long side with the ISL right? If thrusting for orbit maintenance, you have to turn broadside at (relatively) max cross section. In that configuration, the end ISL's have free shots front and back along the plane, and the side ISL gets a rearward limited hemisphere line of sight (allowing both LEFT and RIGHT operation roughly).
Huh. I only see 3 as well. I wonder if the fourth one could be hiding under (or above, depending on your frame of reference) the dark visor next to the compression fitting on the long edge.
Huh. I only see 3 as well. I wonder if the fourth one could be hiding under (or above, depending on your frame of reference) the dark visor next to the compression fitting on the long edge.
if we look on this photo .. (first 10 sats to polar orbit) I don`t find place for 3th anf 4th SpaceLaser
Three lasers is sufficient.
Connected like:
| |
---o---o---o---o---
| |
---o---o---o---o---
| |
Got my Starlink kit a few days ago... [snip]
How's your installation been going? I've installed everything pretty easily, but I wonder maybe I did something wrong or it's just a bad connection with this technology. Anyway, it's cool to have and I hope it will be developed for the better condition
"The Bandwidth Of The StarLink Constellation and the assessment of its potential subscriber base in the USA".
SatMagazine, November 2021
pages 54...57 http://www.satmagazine.com/download.php
What is the theoretical maximum SNR for a Dishy-sized array?
What is the theoretical maximum SNR for a Dishy-sized array?
According to my calculations, 13.64 dB for the case when the satellite is shining at the terminal with 48 cm diameter at a 90 degrees elevation angle .
In this case, it works 100% of terminal`s square. But if the elevation angle is less than 90 degrees , then % the working area is equal to the sinus of the elevation angle..
For 60 degrees this 84% , for 30 degrees only 50%..... and really SNR will be less..
* Shares of payments processing company Shift4 surged in trading on Wednesday after the company announced a five-year partnership with SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet service.
* “Starlink is a cornerstone, global client opening up opportunity throughout the globe. By servicing the business globally, Shift4′s [total addressable market] expands in all the verticals we serve,” the company said.
* Jared Isaacman, founder and CEO of Shift4, notably became an astronaut when he flew to orbit with SpaceX in September on the historic Inspiration4 private mission
What is the theoretical maximum SNR for a Dishy-sized array?
According to my calculations, 13.64 dB for the case when the satellite is shining at the terminal with 48 cm diameter at a 90 degrees elevation angle .
In this case, it works 100% of terminal`s square. But if the elevation angle is less than 90 degrees , then % the working area is equal to the sinus of the elevation angle..
For 60 degrees this 84% , for 30 degrees only 50%..... and really SNR will be less..
The dish is 59 cm.
Rondaz had been posting about the 10 Transporter-1 polar starlink sats being dropped in the orbit update thread, which seemed unusual.
Christian Frhr. von der Ropp on LinkedIn made an interesting comment that SDA had warned about rad hardness of lasercomm terminals for the Transport Layer constellation, and the deorbit oddly seems to coincide with the spike in solar flares around October 26
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6864150263997972480/ (https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6864150263997972480/)
Did those sats really suffer more than previous Starlink sats? Was that a function of the polar orbit/solar flare combo? Were only the LCT's damaged?
They are clearly operational enough to perform deorbit for now...
The dish is 59 cm.
How about the new dish?new dish is 50 x 30 cm, antenna size 48 x 29 cm
Thanks great summary of improvements.How about the new dish?new dish is 50 x 30 cm, antenna size 48 x 29 cm
BUT!!! is very important that
Aperture efficiency is 74% (for UT1 is only 57%)
Maximum Transmit Duty Cycle is 14% (for UT1 is only11%)
Summary - Gain is the same, Download speed the same , Upload speed will be about 25% better..
How about the new dish?new dish is 50 x 30 cm, antenna size 48 x 29 cm
BUT!!! is very important that
Aperture efficiency is 74% (for UT1 is only 57%)
Maximum Transmit Duty Cycle is 14% (for UT1 is only11%)
Summary - Gain is the same, Download speed the same , Upload speed will be about 25% better..
How about the new dish?new dish is 50 x 30 cm, antenna size 48 x 29 cm
BUT!!! is very important that
Aperture efficiency is 74% (for UT1 is only 57%)
Maximum Transmit Duty Cycle is 14% (for UT1 is only11%)
Summary - Gain is the same, Download speed the same , Upload speed will be about 25% better..
Where are those efficiency numbers from?
Inter-satellite laser communications means Starlink can carry data at speed of light in vacuum all around Earth before touching ground.
Over time, some amount of communication can simply be from one user terminal to another without touching the Internet.
Q: My parents are about to travel the earth by boat and it would be great if they could use Starlink for their voyage!
A: Should work everywhere for global maritime by roughly middle of next year (enough sats with laser links launched). Until then, it will be patchy when far from land.
Bruno mentions that constellations are limiting launch windows. SpaceX’s Bill Gerstenmaier then mentions that SpaceX worked with ULA to provide more accurate Starlink data to free up windows for the Lucy launch. #ascendspace
Gerst adds that Russia’s ASAT test “created more debris than any megaconstellation”; a “huge mess.”
Bruno: there has to be consequences for that kind of behavior. #ascendspace
Well, Starlink.com updated a lot of pre-orders today. Most everyone that has mid to late 2021....doesn't anymore....
I now have mid 2022......
Does ANYONE know what the roll out issue is in the USA? They say chip shortages...but I see many post daily of people in other countries all over the world getting their dishy shipped right when they order...but rarely see anyone in the states post getting one. I am just :o about what is going on at this point with it. I just feel that there has got to be something else besides the chips going on.
Thank you for being a supporter of Starlink! Over 14 million people have inquired about Starlink service in their area and today Starlink is available in over 20 countries (and counting).
The Starlink team has been working hard to expand service and increase capacity while continuously improving quality of service. We will be able to accommodate more users per area as we increase the number of satellites in orbit.
Check delivery timelines in your account
Silicon shortages over the last 6 months have slowed our expected production rate and impacted our ability to fulfill many Starlink orders this year. We apologize for the delay and are working hard across our engineering, supply chain, and production teams to improve and streamline our product and factory to increase our production rate.
You can check estimated delivery times by logging into your account page on Starlink.com. You will still receive an email from the Starlink team when your order is ready to ship, and you may cancel your order at any time for a full refund of your deposit.
Latest Starlink now in production
We recently released the latest version of Starlink which was designed for high volume manufacturing. The latest version of Starlink has comparable performance to the previous version and will begin to ship globally next year.
Expanding to more countries across the world
Since our October 2020 launch in the United States we have expanded our service to 20 additional countries: Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Austria, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Switzerland, Portugal, Chile, Poland, Italy, Czech Republic, Mexico, Sweden, and Croatia. Pending regulatory approval, we are planning to launch in an additional 45+ new countries by the end of 2022.
More satellites in orbit with newer technology
We recently completed our 31st Starlink launch with our latest generation of satellites that are equipped with inter-satellite laser links, which enable our satellites to transfer data between each other. Once fully deployed, inter-satellite laser links will make Starlink one of the fastest options available to transfer data around the world.
Thank you for your continued support!
The Starlink Team
Well, Starlink.com updated a lot of pre-orders today. Most everyone that has mid to late 2021....doesn't anymore....
I now have mid 2022......
Does ANYONE know what the roll out issue is in the USA? They say chip shortages...but I see many post daily of people in other countries all over the world getting their dishy shipped right when they order...but rarely see anyone in the states post getting one. I am just :o about what is going on at this point with it. I just feel that there has got to be something else besides the chips going on.
is going to get the foot in the door in as many places as it can to get ahead of competition.Sorry, who do you mean by a competitor??
is going to get the foot in the door in as many places as it can to get ahead of competition.Sorry, who do you mean by a competitor??
all fiber or satellite via GSO are not competitor...
ISTM overseas customers are getting service faster because the sats have a lot more available bandwidth over those areas than they do over North America. https://starlinkstatus.space/ supports this, with UK/FR/DE and AU customers typically getting significantly better download speeds than US and CA over the last couple months .
is going to get the foot in the door in as many places as it can to get ahead of competition.Sorry, who do you mean by a competitor??
all fiber or satellite via GSO are not competitor...
That's a good question. Is anyone else doing, or about to do, low-latency satellite broadband direct to consumers? Kuiper seems to be the only one.
ISTM overseas customers are getting service faster because the sats have a lot more available bandwidth over those areas than they do over North America. https://starlinkstatus.space/ supports this, with UK/FR/DE and AU customers typically getting significantly better download speeds than US and CA over the last couple months .
is going to get the foot in the door in as many places as it can to get ahead of competition.Sorry, who do you mean by a competitor??
all fiber or satellite via GSO are not competitor...
is going to get the foot in the door in as many places as it can to get ahead of competition.Sorry, who do you mean by a competitor??
all fiber or satellite via GSO are not competitor...
By competitor I mean anybody that can get real broadband to rural areas at a competitive price. Speaking for myself, that could be cable (ha ha out here), that could even be Viasat upping my cap and lowering my price (right now I am paying $165 for 100 gigs a month), that could be Verizon putting up an extra cell tower so that I could actually get 4G, it could even be a WISP.
I'm assuming the same holds true in other countries. Starlink may well spur the deployment of competitive options, which is great for the people who have been underserved, but not great for Starlink.
That's not even considering the half UK owned OneWeb, or am I wrong in considering them a competitor?
is going to get the foot in the door in as many places as it can to get ahead of competition.Sorry, who do you mean by a competitor??
all fiber or satellite via GSO are not competitor...
That's a good question. Is anyone else doing, or about to do, low-latency satellite broadband direct to consumers? Kuiper seems to be the only one.
ISTM overseas customers are getting service faster because the sats have a lot more available bandwidth over those areas than they do over North America. https://starlinkstatus.space/ supports this, with UK/FR/DE and AU customers typically getting significantly better download speeds than US and CA over the last couple months .
So is it an amount of sats issue or a GW bandwidth/number of sats each GW can feed issue? I'm leaning towards the GW side from everything I have read to date but always willing to hear other peoples interpretation. There seems to be enough sats over the US at any given time but without the laser interlinks, the GW's have to handle all traffic and there are only so many gateways in the US....
I mean...I'm waiting as I have no other choice, but saying "chip" issue for the CPE is the reason the rollout is slow but then them seeming to add dishys at many supercharger stations instead of people who already put money down just plain looks bad IMO IF...and I stress the IF....the reason is because they can't make dishys fast enough.
Don't get me wrong, I am not really being impatient about it....but Starlink really needs to work on their customer service at this point. I know they hired someone specifically for that it seems....but it really needs work. Just a truthful update once a month or two would be quite welcome and would quite a lot of the people really screaming about it. I signed up for beta as soon as I possibly could. I pre-ordered Feb 9th @ 8am. I have gotten exactly 2 email since I signed up for beta...the day I put my deposit down and yesterday.
I just don't understand what they gain by being so secretive about it personally. They build the next gen rockets/engines in the open for all to see both good and bad and be fully transparent in almost all regards...but then act like BO's PR team with Starlink. :o
is going to get the foot in the door in as many places as it can to get ahead of competition.Sorry, who do you mean by a competitor??
all fiber or satellite via GSO are not competitor...
That's a good question. Is anyone else doing, or about to do, low-latency satellite broadband direct to consumers? Kuiper seems to be the only one.
ISTM overseas customers are getting service faster because the sats have a lot more available bandwidth over those areas than they do over North America. https://starlinkstatus.space/ supports this, with UK/FR/DE and AU customers typically getting significantly better download speeds than US and CA over the last couple months .
So is it an amount of sats issue or a GW bandwidth/number of sats each GW can feed issue? I'm leaning towards the GW side from everything I have read to date but always willing to hear other peoples interpretation. There seems to be enough sats over the US at any given time but without the laser interlinks, the GW's have to handle all traffic and there are only so many gateways in the US....
I mean...I'm waiting as I have no other choice, but saying "chip" issue for the CPE is the reason the rollout is slow but then them seeming to add dishys at many supercharger stations instead of people who already put money down just plain looks bad IMO IF...and I stress the IF....the reason is because they can't make dishys fast enough.
Don't get me wrong, I am not really being impatient about it....but Starlink really needs to work on their customer service at this point. I know they hired someone specifically for that it seems....but it really needs work. Just a truthful update once a month or two would be quite welcome and would quite a lot of the people really screaming about it. I signed up for beta as soon as I possibly could. I pre-ordered Feb 9th @ 8am. I have gotten exactly 2 email since I signed up for beta...the day I put my deposit down and yesterday.
I just don't understand what they gain by being so secretive about it personally. They build the next gen rockets/engines in the open for all to see both good and bad and be fully transparent in almost all regards...but then act like BO's PR team with Starlink. :o
So is it an amount of sats issue or a GW bandwidth/number of sats each GW can feed issue? I'm leaning towards the GW side from everything I have read to date but always willing to hear other peoples interpretation. There seems to be enough sats over the US at any given time but without the laser interlinks, the GW's have to handle all traffic and there are only so many gateways in the US....
By competitor I mean anybody that can get real broadband to rural areas at a competitive price. Speaking for myself, that could be cable (ha ha out here), that could even be Viasat upping my cap and lowering my price (right now I am paying $165 for 100 gigs a month), that could be Verizon putting up an extra cell tower so that I could actually get 4G, it could even be a WISP.1) Viasat operate from Geostacionary orbit with latency about 700 ms. It is ANOTHER internet that you normaly mean - forget about online games and VPN..
That's not even considering the half UK owned OneWeb, or am I wrong in considering them a competitor?
By competitor I mean anybody that can get real broadband to rural areas at a competitive price. Speaking for myself, that could be cable (ha ha out here), that could even be Viasat upping my cap and lowering my price (right now I am paying $165 for 100 gigs a month), that could be Verizon putting up an extra cell tower so that I could actually get 4G, it could even be a WISP.1) Viasat operate from Geostacionary orbit with latency about 700 ms. It is ANOTHER internet that you normaly mean - forget about online games and VPN..
That's not even considering the half UK owned OneWeb, or am I wrong in considering them a competitor?
2) OneWEB / OneWEb don`t have solutions for individual user . Look on Internet Point from OneWEb for small town in Alaska or Kymeta Terminal for ships or auto with price 5000+ USD
.@SpaceX expand Starlink's IP backbone as POPs in Chicago, NYC (incl @DECIX), Atlanta, Dallas, Săo PauloFlag of Brazil, Stgo de QroFlag of Mexico & LagosFlag of Nigeria show up in
@PeeringDB (https://peeringdb.com/net/18747), more prefixes announced & upstreams added (https://bgp.he.net/AS14593#_asinfo). Moving away from @googlecloud?
Hopefully you have a Electric Co-op running Fiber to house and get that sonner
Hopefully you have a Electric Co-op running Fiber to house and get that sonner
Ha Ha. About a year ago, our Public Utility District was advertising along the road to my neighborhood that fiber service was available, call for info. So several of the people on my road (a private gravel road with less than a dozen properties) inquired. To run fiber from the local school district feed, down 2 miles of road to my neighborhood would total about $170K USD, so assuming 10 homeowners went in on the offer, that's $17K per house, not counting the cost of having a contractor run a fiber tap from the nearest utility pole, underground to your house, perhaps another few $K. Then, the ISP would charge $80/mo for 100Mb/s or $120/mo for 1Gb/s. So we all said "no thank you". And when Starlink took reservations in February, I jumped on it immediately. Eight months later, I got my kit. I geuss my cell was neither too empty nor too full.
So is it an amount of sats issue or a GW bandwidth/number of sats each GW can feed issue? I'm leaning towards the GW side from everything I have read to date but always willing to hear other peoples interpretation. There seems to be enough sats over the US at any given time but without the laser interlinks, the GW's have to handle all traffic and there are only so many gateways in the US....
Gateways are not a problem.
1) The Gateway has a parabolic antenna of 1.5 m and the link budget shows that the spectral efficiency in the Gateway - Satellite channel is 5+ bits per Hertz, and for the satellite - terminal line - only 3.
2) the GW works with both polarizations. User Terminal with only one
3) The gateway has 9 antennas and will support 4 satellites at the same time without any problems. 2 antennas per satellite and one in reserve may be "hot" reserve.
4) now in the USA 30+ gateways are already approved by FCC and 60+ filed
5) 75..80 satellites are now visible over the USA at any moment of time. (It need only 20 GWs)
6) GWs are located in such a way that each satellite at any given time can operate ("see") 3 gateways (this is for a gateway reservation)
The consequences for SpaceX if we can not get enough reliable Raptors made is that we then can’t fly Starship, which means we then can’t fly Starlink Satellite V2 (Falcon has neither the volume nor the mass to orbit needed for satellite V2). Satellite V1, by itself, is financially weak, while V2 is strong.
In addition, we are spooling up terminal production to several million units per year, which will consume massive capital, assuming that satellite V2 will be on orbit to handle the bandwidth demand. These terminals will be useless otherwise.
Leaked Elon email (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54984.msg2315651#msg2315651) confirms Starlink V2 needs Starship, plus some other Starlink news:Quote from: Leaked Elon EmailThe consequences for SpaceX if we can not get enough reliable Raptors made is that we then can’t fly Starship, which means we then can’t fly Starlink Satellite V2 (Falcon has neither the volume nor the mass to orbit needed for satellite V2). Satellite V1, by itself, is financially weak, while V2 is strong.
In addition, we are spooling up terminal production to several million units per year, which will consume massive capital, assuming that satellite V2 will be on orbit to handle the bandwidth demand. These terminals will be useless otherwise.
Leaked Elon email (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54984.msg2315651#msg2315651) confirms Starlink V2 needs Starship, plus some other Starlink news:Quote from: Leaked Elon EmailThe consequences for SpaceX if we can not get enough reliable Raptors made is that we then can’t fly Starship, which means we then can’t fly Starlink Satellite V2 (Falcon has neither the volume nor the mass to orbit needed for satellite V2). Satellite V1, by itself, is financially weak, while V2 is strong.
In addition, we are spooling up terminal production to several million units per year, which will consume massive capital, assuming that satellite V2 will be on orbit to handle the bandwidth demand. These terminals will be useless otherwise.
This is about schedule alignment. If Starship is only ready a year later, then millions of terminals and thousands of V2 satellites will sit idle, not generating any revenue.
So Elon is rightly cracking the whip.
A slightly bit offtopic - regarding Elon's mail:
If the current V1 satellites are financially weak (I guess not enough capacity) and V2 (much bigger) are required, what does it mean for other satellite constellations (Kuiper, OneWeb)?
Assuming he's not lying or exaggerating for effect
"...reliable, reusable and cheap..." Pick any two. That's the way it usually works. If it's reliable and reusable, cheap isn't quite so important. IIRC Elon targeted $250k. If it comes out three times that with incredible robustness and a 50 flight lifetime, would it be a show stopper? I doubt it.A slightly bit offtopic - regarding Elon's mail:
If the current V1 satellites are financially weak (I guess not enough capacity) and V2 (much bigger) are required, what does it mean for other satellite constellations (Kuiper, OneWeb)?
Elon did say about starlink at one point something like this:
LEO satellite constellations have all gone bankrupt on the first try before(iridium).
So the challenge is not to go bankrupt on the first try.
So raptor is currently not looking good on the balance sheets.
He needs raptor to be reliable and reusable and cheap to manufacture to close the economics case.
As I understand Sat has 3 FAR Antenna to transmit to Earth in Ku and 1 FAR for receiving from Earth (user terminal).. This FAR antenna , each can use part of full square to configurate 2..3..4..6 (?) beam and point it in different directions .
What is the physical limitation on the number of user link beams per satellite? They have 8 channels with 2 polarizations. Shouldn't they be able to run at least 16 antennas per satellite instead of 4?
A slightly bit offtopic - regarding Elon's mail:for OneWEB - nothing. It has another orbit, coverage and business model
If the current V1 satellites are financially weak (I guess not enough capacity) and V2 (much bigger) are required, what does it mean for other satellite constellations (Kuiper, OneWeb)?
For start Amazon don't need to worry about funding new RLV they have four in development to choose from, NG, Neutron, Beta and Terrian R could also include F9R and SS if they are willing to fly with competitor. Amazon will already have fixed launch cost from those launch suppliers. Amazon business model is different from Spacex, their primary customer is themselves and their big AWS customers. Kupier gives them a private and hopefully secure internal internet something you can't always put $ value on. Funding is also area where Amazon is stronger, they have very deep pockets, a few $B cost overrun won't bankrupt them.A slightly bit offtopic - regarding Elon's mail:for OneWEB - nothing. It has another orbit, coverage and business model
If the current V1 satellites are financially weak (I guess not enough capacity) and V2 (much bigger) are required, what does it mean for other satellite constellations (Kuiper, OneWeb)?
but for Kuiper with the same Business Model and direct competition with StarLink - personal user terminal
now is
time to think it over and can be change the size of the cells, the operating mode of the terminal, etc.
Assuming he's not lying or exaggerating for effect
It's not really an assumption I would bet on...
As I understand Sat has 3 FAR Antenna to transmit to Earth in Ku and 1 FAR for receiving from Earth (user terminal).. This FAR antenna , each can use part of full square to configurate 2..3..4..6 (?) beam and point it in different directions .
What is the physical limitation on the number of user link beams per satellite? They have 8 channels with 2 polarizations. Shouldn't they be able to run at least 16 antennas per satellite instead of 4?
A slightly bit offtopic - regarding Elon's mail:
If the current V1 satellites are financially weak (I guess not enough capacity) and V2 (much bigger) are required, what does it mean for other satellite constellations (Kuiper, OneWeb)?
Assuming he's not lying or exaggerating for effect
It's not really an assumption I would bet on...
Yeah, we should keep in mind that a) thus far, SpaceX has had practically unlimited investor demand with every funding round being massively oversubscribed, b) Musk has tens of billions in Tesla stock that he could sell to fund SpaceX if need be, and c) worst case, SpaceX could reduce R&D spend and "just" be the most dominant launch provider on the planet. SpaceX won't be going bankrupt barring some wildly unlikely edge case scenario.
The vast majority of those 3% could never afford $50 a month. And I doubt they get more than %30 of any market. I think a more realistic back of the napkin is this. They have filed with the FCC for 1mil base stations (presumably in the US). Lets assume they get $100-500 a month per (those base stations serve to 100s of users so 1-5$/mo/user). And $100m-500m/mo revenue for SpaceX from North America. About the same from Europe, presumably less from places like Africa where even $1 per user would be too much.This is much more realistic, but even this will be very difficult to implement, communication is a strategic industry and very few countries are ready to give it to foreigners.
just doing some back of the napkin calculations, during the tesla earnings call said that they want starlink to serve 3-5% of the worlds population, using an arbitrary monthly price of $50 starlink would earn:The vast majority of those 3% could never afford $50 a month. And I doubt they get more than %30 of any market.
For 3%
11.3 B/month or 135.5 B/year
For 5%
18.8 B/month or 225.9 B/year
Thats a lot or revenue
I think a more realistic back of the napkin is this. They have filed with the FCC for 1mil base stations (presumably in the US). Lets assume they get $100-500 a month per (those base stations serve to 100s of users so 1-5$/mo/user). And $100m-500m/mo revenue for SpaceX from North America. About the same from Europe, presumably less from places like Africa where even $1 per user would be too much.
You have one person owning half of the active satellites in the world. That’s quite amazing. De facto, he is making the rules. The rest of the world including Europe... is just not responding quick enough.
ESA head says Europe needs to stop facilitating Elon Musk’s ambitions in space (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/elon-musk-being-allowed-to-make-the-rules-in-space-esa-chief-warns/)QuoteYou have one person owning half of the active satellites in the world. That’s quite amazing. De facto, he is making the rules. The rest of the world including Europe... is just not responding quick enough.
ESA head says Europe needs to stop facilitating Elon Musk’s ambitions in space (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/elon-musk-being-allowed-to-make-the-rules-in-space-esa-chief-warns/)QuoteYou have one person owning half of the active satellites in the world. That’s quite amazing. De facto, he is making the rules. The rest of the world including Europe... is just not responding quick enough.
ESA head says Europe needs to stop facilitating Elon Musk’s ambitions in space (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/elon-musk-being-allowed-to-make-the-rules-in-space-esa-chief-warns/)QuoteYou have one person owning half of the active satellites in the world. That’s quite amazing. De facto, he is making the rules. The rest of the world including Europe... is just not responding quick enough.
So what is he actually proposing they do?
Nothing. It's just political PR.
There are just soooo many people %@&%^ing about SpaceX but really....what has SpaceX done? They have followed every single regulation on the books....so...why is most everyone else chapped about them? I personally guess it come down to them not thinking SpaceX could pull off what they requested (still got to see if they get all the way there). SpaceX requested, got told yea sure with the expectation of older companies that there was no way they could do that, and now the old companies got caught with their pants down.
All I see when these supposed leaders spout off BS like this is a 2 year old throwing a tantrum. You can be dang sure that ESA would be singing the opposite song if they were in SpaceX's position.
Why is it that the people afraid of taking risks get upset at the people who do take the risks? SpaceX gambled on Starlink and so far...it looks to be making good so far.
I know this sounds ranty but all the BS being spouted by all the older space/com companies just chaps my butt! Compete or get the hell out of the way! Tired of these industries getting all bent out of shape because they got use to not competing and seemed to have forgot how to....so they throw fits instead. ::)
"They will ignore you, then they will laugh at you, then they will fight you, then you win" can't be overstatedESA head says Europe needs to stop facilitating Elon Musk’s ambitions in space (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/elon-musk-being-allowed-to-make-the-rules-in-space-esa-chief-warns/)QuoteYou have one person owning half of the active satellites in the world. That’s quite amazing. De facto, he is making the rules. The rest of the world including Europe... is just not responding quick enough.
So what is he actually proposing they do?
Nothing. It's just political PR.
There are just soooo many people %@&%^ing about SpaceX but really....what has SpaceX done? They have followed every single regulation on the books....so...why is most everyone else chapped about them? I personally guess it come down to them not thinking SpaceX could pull off what they requested (still got to see if they get all the way there). SpaceX requested, got told yea sure with the expectation of older companies that there was no way they could do that, and now the old companies got caught with their pants down.
All I see when these supposed leaders spout off BS like this is a 2 year old throwing a tantrum. You can be dang sure that ESA would be singing the opposite song if they were in SpaceX's position.
Why is it that the people afraid of taking risks get upset at the people who do take the risks? SpaceX gambled on Starlink and so far...it looks to be making good so far.
I know this sounds ranty but all the BS being spouted by all the older space/com companies just chaps my butt! Compete or get the hell out of the way! Tired of these industries getting all bent out of shape because they got use to not competing and seemed to have forgot how to....so they throw fits instead. ::)
Europe has a completely different mind set on this. Telecom has traditionally been highly regulated and considered very much a part of the national (now EU) infrastructure. I think the complaint isn't that Elon is winning so much as the regulatory structure is less mature than the suddenly unfolding reality and whatever structures arise will have an already established non home brew structure confronting it.ESA head says Europe needs to stop facilitating Elon Musk’s ambitions in space (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/elon-musk-being-allowed-to-make-the-rules-in-space-esa-chief-warns/)QuoteYou have one person owning half of the active satellites in the world. That’s quite amazing. De facto, he is making the rules. The rest of the world including Europe... is just not responding quick enough.
So what is he actually proposing they do?
Nothing. It's just political PR.
There are just soooo many people %@&%^ing about SpaceX but really....what has SpaceX done? They have followed every single regulation on the books....so...why is most everyone else chapped about them? I personally guess it come down to them not thinking SpaceX could pull off what they requested (still got to see if they get all the way there). SpaceX requested, got told yea sure with the expectation of older companies that there was no way they could do that, and now the old companies got caught with their pants down.
All I see when these supposed leaders spout off BS like this is a 2 year old throwing a tantrum. You can be dang sure that ESA would be singing the opposite song if they were in SpaceX's position.
Why is it that the people afraid of taking risks get upset at the people who do take the risks? SpaceX gambled on Starlink and so far...it looks to be making good so far.
I know this sounds ranty but all the BS being spouted by all the older space/com companies just chaps my butt! Compete or get the hell out of the way! Tired of these industries getting all bent out of shape because they got use to not competing and seemed to have forgot how to....so they throw fits instead. ::)
Another way of looking at this is that industries are now arising that are, by their very nature, global, and not all the globe is happy with it. When I take off my fanboi hat I have concerns for what the Elon Empire might become when the passionate idealists are gone and professional managers turn it into a General Motors on steroids.
ESA head says Europe needs to stop facilitating Elon Musk’s ambitions in space (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/elon-musk-being-allowed-to-make-the-rules-in-space-esa-chief-warns/)QuoteYou have one person owning half of the active satellites in the world. That’s quite amazing. De facto, he is making the rules. The rest of the world including Europe... is just not responding quick enough.
So what is he actually proposing they do?
Another way of looking at this is that industries are now arising that are, by their very nature, global, and not all the globe is happy with it. When I take off my fanboi hat I have concerns for what the Elon Empire might become when the passionate idealists are gone and professional managers turn it into a General Motors on steroids.
ESA head says Europe needs to stop facilitating Elon Musk’s ambitions in space (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/elon-musk-being-allowed-to-make-the-rules-in-space-esa-chief-warns/)QuoteYou have one person owning half of the active satellites in the world. That’s quite amazing. De facto, he is making the rules. The rest of the world including Europe... is just not responding quick enough.
So what is he actually proposing they do?
Landing rights, this is the only leverage they have against Starlink. Although I believe Starlink already got landing rights in major EU countries, so I'm guessing this is why Aschbacher is not happy.
I don't read it that way. Aschbacher has sounded the alarm that Europe risks being left behind in space on multiple occassions now. He wants more investment, the rest is editorializing by the FT.ESA head says Europe needs to stop facilitating Elon Musk’s ambitions in space (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/elon-musk-being-allowed-to-make-the-rules-in-space-esa-chief-warns/)QuoteYou have one person owning half of the active satellites in the world. That’s quite amazing. De facto, he is making the rules. The rest of the world including Europe... is just not responding quick enough.
So what is he actually proposing they do?
Landing rights, this is the only leverage they have against Starlink. Although I believe Starlink already got landing rights in major EU countries, so I'm guessing this is why Aschbacher is not happy.
Le patron d'Arianespace dénonce le "risque de monopolisation" de l'espace par SpaceX (https://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_le-patron-d-arianespace-denonce-le-risque-de-monopolisation-de-l-espace-par-spacex?id=10770726)QuoteThe massive launch of satellites into low orbit by the American SpaceX for its Starlink constellation created a "risk of de facto monopolization" of space which undermines the sustainability of its operation, denounced the head of Arianespace Stéphane Israël.
...
I already said it but I expecting more and more European lawfare against Starlink and SpaceX in general.
I know this sounds ranty but all the BS being spouted by all the older space/com companies just chaps my butt! Compete or get the hell out of the way! Tired of these industries getting all bent out of shape because they got use to not competing and seemed to have forgot how to....so they throw fits instead. ::)
Good point.I know this sounds ranty but all the BS being spouted by all the older space/com companies just chaps my butt! Compete or get the hell out of the way! Tired of these industries getting all bent out of shape because they got use to not competing and seemed to have forgot how to....so they throw fits instead. ::)
I think equal rights for USA telecom companies in Europe and European telcos in USA is the most correct way.
that is, it is necessary to prohibit SpaceX from creating its 100% subsidiaries in Europe, and, following the example of the United States, to oblige that 75% of the shares in them should belong to European businessmen ...
Nothing personly only business ...
I know this sounds ranty but all the BS being spouted by all the older space/com companies just chaps my butt! Compete or get the hell out of the way! Tired of these industries getting all bent out of shape because they got use to not competing and seemed to have forgot how to....so they throw fits instead. ::)
I think equal rights for USA telecom companies in Europe and European telcos in USA is the most correct way.
that is, it is necessary to prohibit SpaceX from creating its 100% subsidiaries in Europe, and, following the example of the United States, to oblige that 75% of the shares in them should belong to European businessmen ...
Nothing personly only business ...
Good point.I know this sounds ranty but all the BS being spouted by all the older space/com companies just chaps my butt! Compete or get the hell out of the way! Tired of these industries getting all bent out of shape because they got use to not competing and seemed to have forgot how to....so they throw fits instead. ::)
I think equal rights for USA telecom companies in Europe and European telcos in USA is the most correct way.
that is, it is necessary to prohibit SpaceX from creating its 100% subsidiaries in Europe, and, following the example of the United States, to oblige that 75% of the shares in them should belong to European businessmen ...
Nothing personly only business ...
The main goal of Starlink international usage is to increase the total revenue without increasing the total costs back to SpaceX/Starlink. A not wholly owned subsidiary has to purchase the bandwidth in bulk to then resell it to it's subscribers. But the result is that that increases to total revenue that the constellation puls in which then funds new sats launch and other top corporate costs plus will generally increase profit levels because the almost fixed costs are distributed across more users.
In general it's a solid business practice that can greatly increase Starlink's general usage and revenue sources to many countries.
...It's not like Elon didn't warn them couple of years ago with Ariane6 being a dead-end.
SpaceX is 18 to 0 years ahead of Arianespace and pulling away.
More investment is only part of it. EU has announced plans for a reusable booster. Wanna bet against it being over weight, over budget and over the event horizon? The young guys get it but the old guys are oldI don't read it that way. Aschbacher has sounded the alarm that Europe risks being left behind in space on multiple occassions now. He wants more investment, the rest is editorializing by the FT.ESA head says Europe needs to stop facilitating Elon Musk’s ambitions in space (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/elon-musk-being-allowed-to-make-the-rules-in-space-esa-chief-warns/)QuoteYou have one person owning half of the active satellites in the world. That’s quite amazing. De facto, he is making the rules. The rest of the world including Europe... is just not responding quick enough.
So what is he actually proposing they do?
Landing rights, this is the only leverage they have against Starlink. Although I believe Starlink already got landing rights in major EU countries, so I'm guessing this is why Aschbacher is not happy.
More investment is only part of it. EU has announced plans for a reusable booster. Wanna bet against it being over weight, over budget and over the event horizon? The young guys get it but the old guys are oldI don't read it that way. Aschbacher has sounded the alarm that Europe risks being left behind in space on multiple occassions now. He wants more investment, the rest is editorializing by the FT.ESA head says Europe needs to stop facilitating Elon Musk’s ambitions in space (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/elon-musk-being-allowed-to-make-the-rules-in-space-esa-chief-warns/)QuoteYou have one person owning half of the active satellites in the world. That’s quite amazing. De facto, he is making the rules. The rest of the world including Europe... is just not responding quick enough.
So what is he actually proposing they do?
Landing rights, this is the only leverage they have against Starlink. Although I believe Starlink already got landing rights in major EU countries, so I'm guessing this is why Aschbacher is not happy.schoolspace. It's the attitude that makes the difference.
I know this sounds ranty but all the BS being spouted by all the older space/com companies just chaps my butt! Compete or get the hell out of the way! Tired of these industries getting all bent out of shape because they got use to not competing and seemed to have forgot how to....so they throw fits instead. ::)
I think equal rights for USA telecom companies in Europe and European telcos in USA is the most correct way.
that is, it is necessary to prohibit SpaceX from creating its 100% subsidiaries in Europe, and, following the example of the United States, to oblige that 75% of the shares in them should belong to European businessmen ...
Nothing personly only business ...
Not sure if this 75% share requirement is hypothetical or reality. If it's reality, does SES or Telesat have a 75% share subsidiary in the US when they're selling services in the US?
Not sure if this 75% share requirement is hypothetical or reality. If it's reality, does SES or Telesat have a 75% share subsidiary in the US when they're selling services in the US?
but do they sell ??
As far as I know, they are selling the satellite capacity to US goverment (if it need outside USA in Iraq or Afganistan or US telco and Broadcast companies/ And US Telco sell service for US endcustomer (American companies or citizens).
Or I don’t know something ??
And of course - Foreign company can ask FCC about exception from this Act.
Note - SES in USA is former Satellite Operator Americom with own fleet (SES bought it in 2001...)
they are all politicians and consider everything using political language. More of it European political system transforms more and more into specific governmental heavy administrative system of the (re)distribution (which is even much more restrictive than regulatory) nature.Le patron d'Arianespace dénonce le "risque de monopolisation" de l'espace par SpaceX (https://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_le-patron-d-arianespace-denonce-le-risque-de-monopolisation-de-l-espace-par-spacex?id=10770726)QuoteThe massive launch of satellites into low orbit by the American SpaceX for its Starlink constellation created a "risk of de facto monopolization" of space which undermines the sustainability of its operation, denounced the head of Arianespace Stéphane Israël.
...
I already said it but I expecting more and more European lawfare against Starlink and SpaceX in general.
This is a repeat of previous European statements.
I only took a few classes in French after college so after reading the original I ran it through Google Translate and got pretty much the same results. "Bitch, Bitch, Bitch. Whine, Whine, Whine. FUD, FUD, FUD. Blame others to distract from one's one failure." Rather unbecoming for le patron d'Arianespace especially considering that he didn't offer a single recommendation on how to compete in this new marketplace, only complaints that someone else got there first. These folks are acting like somebody moved their cheese, when in reality SpaceX developed a new way to make cheese while they have been hemming and hawing rather than bending metal. Six months later and the same tune is just as unbecoming when we hear it from ESA. European citizens in remote areas are being offered technology that their local telecoms can't, and the call from the head of ESA is that other leaders should deny their citizenry of this bounty, rather than asking why he as the leader of ESA failed to develop competitive local solutions. Expect more of the same in the decades to come.
Both SES and Telesat got C-band clearing payout from FCC, so I assume they're selling something on this band in the US.Yes, of cource They sell capacity to american broadcater like BellTv, AirBox (all SES Customer)
ESA DG Josef Aschbacher says his comments in an FT interview about SpaceX’s Starlink satellites dominating LEO were misinterpreted as criticism. “Elon Musk is doing great things,” he says, but still need to address safe management of orbits. #WSBW
In a #WSBW panel on constellations, more discussions about multi-orbit (LEO/MEO/GEO) solutions. SpaceX’s Jonathan Hofeller says he’s open to exploring with GEO operators to see where Starlink+GEO works. But, have yet to find such a solution that makes sense.
In a #WSBW panel on constellations, more discussions about multi-orbit (LEO/MEO/GEO) solutions. SpaceX’s Jonathan Hofeller says he’s open to exploring with GEO operators to see where Starlink+GEO works. But, have yet to find such a solution that makes sense.
As far as I know the only non UN recognized by most countries are Vatican City, Kosovo, Palestine and Taiwan.
But in United Nations are only 193 country today....
+Vatican?? Monaco?? Scotland??
But in United Nations are only 193 country today....
+Vatican?? Monaco?? Scotland??
Since South Sudan became an independent state on 9 July 2011, there are now 195 independent sovereign nations in the world (not including the disputed but de facto independent Taiwan), plus some 60 dependent areas, and several disputed territories, like Kosovo.
200Mbps from a @SpaceX #Starlink terminal mounted to a @Tesla #ModelX while driving down the freeway at 100km/h. Many thanks to @Jays200 for awesome steel fabrication.
Can’t wait for full Starlink roaming ability @elonmusk
A lot of improvement still coming just from software updates to satellites & terminals
We are also working on the new build system that will make it easier to create and maintain custom image flavors and will serve as base for Autonomus Build Environment or ABE for customers who require build and serve VyOS in air gapped environments (for example ships including space ones)
Some interesting info : current supported density is 100 Starlinks per 300 sqkm.
Slide 6 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UOI7b5flgAjJrPs2HDa64p_ZABckasa_/view
Some interesting info : current supported density is 100 Starlinks per 300 sqkm.Nah, that's what they say is "optimal." I take it to mean that any more than that would require more bandwidth sharing.
Slide 6 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UOI7b5flgAjJrPs2HDa64p_ZABckasa_/view
Some interesting info : current supported density is 100 Starlinks per 300 sqkm.
Slide 6 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UOI7b5flgAjJrPs2HDa64p_ZABckasa_/view
You do realize that that number is pretty much comparable to municipal broadband (cable, *dsl, and probably even fiber)? High oversubscription is something all ISPs do.Some interesting info : current supported density is 100 Starlinks per 300 sqkm.
Slide 6 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UOI7b5flgAjJrPs2HDa64p_ZABckasa_/view
1 cell with 15 miles diametr has square 380 km2 or 130 users
This is almost 2 times less than it was calculated here.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=post;quote=2308612;topic=48297.3320
This means that the average monthly speed per subscriber is about 6-8 Mbps if 1 beam serve only 1 cell.
You do realize that that number is pretty much comparable to municipal broadband (cable, *dsl, and probably even fiber)? High oversubscription is something all ISPs do.Some interesting info : current supported density is 100 Starlinks per 300 sqkm.
Slide 6 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UOI7b5flgAjJrPs2HDa64p_ZABckasa_/view
1 cell with 15 miles diametr has square 380 km2 or 130 users
This is almost 2 times less than it was calculated here.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=post;quote=2308612;topic=48297.3320
This means that the average monthly speed per subscriber is about 6-8 Mbps if 1 beam serve only 1 cell.
In my student dorm we had only 1Mbit/user (700 users, 700mbit/s), but I always achieved download speeds of 100mbit/s if the source allowed it.
You do realize that that number is pretty much comparable to municipal broadband (cable, *dsl, and probably even fiber)? High oversubscription is something all ISPs do.Some interesting info : current supported density is 100 Starlinks per 300 sqkm.
Slide 6 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UOI7b5flgAjJrPs2HDa64p_ZABckasa_/view
1 cell with 15 miles diametr has square 380 km2 or 130 users
This is almost 2 times less than it was calculated here.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=post;quote=2308612;topic=48297.3320
This means that the average monthly speed per subscriber is about 6-8 Mbps if 1 beam serve only 1 cell.
In my student dorm we had only 1Mbit/user (700 users, 700mbit/s), but I always achieved download speeds of 100mbit/s if the source allowed it.
I don't think vsatman is saying the speed is low, I think he's saying the opposite.
Some interesting info : current supported density is 100 Starlinks per 300 sqkm.
Slide 6 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UOI7b5flgAjJrPs2HDa64p_ZABckasa_/view
Some very interesting stuff. They plan on 200k terminals in India alone by the end of 2022. Considering that's only one territory, they'll be moving into billion dollar revenue by 2023 at the latest. They also seem confident in being able to supply user terminals in very large quantities.
Some interesting info : current supported density is 100 Starlinks per 300 sqkm.
Slide 6 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UOI7b5flgAjJrPs2HDa64p_ZABckasa_/view
Some very interesting stuff. They plan on 200k terminals in India alone by the end of 2022. Considering that's only one territory, they'll be moving into billion dollar revenue by 2023 at the latest. They also seem confident in being able to supply user terminals in very large quantities.
I would hesitate to extrapolate cleanly from North America/Europe prices to Indian prices. Many companies offer services much closer to cost there and in other lower income markets (I know this from personal experience). It’s possible Starlink is charging the same price - there are quite a few well off Indians and Indian businesses - but I’d want it confirmed if possible.
I would hesitate to extrapolate cleanly from North America/Europe prices to Indian prices. Many companies offer services much closer to cost there and in other lower income markets (I know this from personal experience). It’s possible Starlink is charging the same price - there are quite a few well off Indians and Indian businesses - but I’d want it confirmed if possible.
Although it's also possible that Starlink is still giving each subscriber 2~3 Mbit/s but is using one beam to serve multiple cells.
Unfortunately, it is wrong to think so.Although it's also possible that Starlink is still giving each subscriber 2~3 Mbit/s but is using one beam to serve multiple cells.
This is a good point. Due to the limited number of satellites in service at present, it seems almost certain that they are serving multiple cells with each beam (or at least with each sat-side antenna, which is slightly different since 1 antenna can potentially form multiple beams). For example, in the US, they have about 50 satellites overhead at any given time, each with 4 antennas. But the US is 8 million square km, or over 25,000 cells in area. So they would need to serve 133 cells with each antenna to offer complete coverage, or at one antenna per cell could only cover less than 1% of the country.
Depending on how much angular separation they need to reuse the same channel, though, they might be able to get a lot more than 600-800 Mbps per antenna/channel.
2) But more importantly, you have only 2000 MHz frequency band in each polarization on thelink Gateway -satellite in the Ka band, this band is converted on the satellite to the Ku band on the link satellite- user terminal - 8 beams of 240 MHz in one right polarization
the beam can continuously serve cell N1 for 10 milliseconds, then switch to the cell N2 (switching time for FAR ESA is about only 10 microseconds) to transmitt 10 milliseconds to UT in Cell N2 and switch back to cell N 1. N1 - N2 -N1 - N2 .....
and then the Sputnik will serve not 8 cells, but 16.
But the average speed and volume of transmitted traffic will also be 2 times less for each of the 16 cells than in the version with 8 cells. But if you have not so many subscribers in each cell, not 200-300, but 50-100, then this approach will help you serve more subscribers and close more territory.
theoretically, the beam can serve not 2 cells, but more, for example, as in the figure below 8, but then you need to reduce the operating time in each cell to 2-5 milliseconds, otherwise there will be a very high latency
1) They have limited spectrum for the uplink, but (unlike at the user terminal receiver) there are no arbitrary limits on flux density or aperture size at the satellite receiver. So the SNR can be arbitrarily high as needed, and the power flux and aperture can be sized to make the uplink data throughput match the downlink. It doesn't seem to me that uplink spectrum is a limiting issue at the moment.
2)Or, since each antenna array is really thousands of small antennas, they could subdivide the arrays into 2 or more smaller or sparser arrays and transmit multiple beams simultaneously in different directions. This assumes they have the necessary margins on power and beam angle, since the small or sparse array will perform worse on one or more of those factors.
Elon Musk has hit back at criticism that his company’s Starlink satellites are hogging too much room in space, and has instead argued there could be room for “tens of billions” of spacecraft in orbits close to Earth.
“Space is just extremely enormous, and satellites are very tiny,” Musk said. “This is not some situation where we’re effectively blocking others in any way. We’ve not blocked anyone from doing anything, nor do we expect to.”
His comments, made in an interview with the Financial Times, came in response to a claim from Josef Aschbacher, head of the European Space Agency, that Musk was “making the rules” for the new commercial space economy. Speaking to the FT earlier this month, Aschbacher warned Musk’s rush to launch thousands of communications satellites would leave fewer radio frequencies and orbital slots available for everyone else.
A U.S. Department of State spokesperson said in a statement that the government agreed with an assessment by the Space Force that America "did not estimate a significant probability of collision between the CSS and any Starlink spacecraft."
"The U.S. Government has reaffirmed that assessment, is reviewing the details of the (People's Republic of China's) note verbale to the UN Secretary General of December 3, 2021, and looks forward to following up bilaterally with the PRC," the spokesperson wrote. "The United States is committed to sustainable, rules-based activities in outer space, whether those activities are performed by governments or the private sector."
The State Department noted that the U.S. has offered spaceflight safety information to China since 2010. That information includes notifications "of potentially hazardous close approaches" between Chinese spacecraft and other objects. If an object appears on course to strike a Chinese ship, the U.S. will provide a notification to a "designated point of contact."
U.S. Didn't ID Near Crash Between SpaceX and Chinese Space Station, Despite Complaint (https://www.newsweek.com/us-didnt-id-near-crash-between-spacex-chinese-space-station-despite-complaint-1664436)Quote from: newsweek.comA U.S. Department of State spokesperson said in a statement that the government agreed with an assessment by the Space Force that America "did not estimate a significant probability of collision between the CSS and any Starlink spacecraft."
"The U.S. Government has reaffirmed that assessment, is reviewing the details of the (People's Republic of China's) note verbale to the UN Secretary General of December 3, 2021, and looks forward to following up bilaterally with the PRC," the spokesperson wrote. "The United States is committed to sustainable, rules-based activities in outer space, whether those activities are performed by governments or the private sector."
The State Department noted that the U.S. has offered spaceflight safety information to China since 2010. That information includes notifications "of potentially hazardous close approaches" between Chinese spacecraft and other objects. If an object appears on course to strike a Chinese ship, the U.S. will provide a notification to a "designated point of contact."
There is good reason for a neutral party to be a clearinghouse for global collision data. Think it's in everyone's interest. I really doubt this is anything about Musk or SpaceX or whatever, just the issue in general. China is definitely quite proud of their space station, and the US is definitely worried about their space ambitions and any potentially aggressive moves.
Military sats are a very small percentage especially with constellations coming on line. The onus would be on the launching party to dodge, IMO. The danger would be secret sats unintentionally hitting each other. Low probability.There is good reason for a neutral party to be a clearinghouse for global collision data. Think it's in everyone's interest. I really doubt this is anything about Musk or SpaceX or whatever, just the issue in general. China is definitely quite proud of their space station, and the US is definitely worried about their space ambitions and any potentially aggressive moves.
The main thing is that this neutral monitoring center has data on all satellites.
But now most countries, including the United States, consider the orbits of their military satellites to be secret and do not report them to anyone ....
Hypothethically, if there was a military megaconstellation, would it be also secret or it'd be simply unbearable?There is good reason for a neutral party to be a clearinghouse for global collision data. Think it's in everyone's interest. I really doubt this is anything about Musk or SpaceX or whatever, just the issue in general. China is definitely quite proud of their space station, and the US is definitely worried about their space ambitions and any potentially aggressive moves.
The main thing is that this neutral monitoring center has data on all satellites.
But now most countries, including the United States, consider the orbits of their military satellites to be secret and do not report them to anyone ....
Per this SpaceNews article, the head of the India division also resigned, effective December 31, 2021.
https://spacenews.com/starlinks-head-of-india-resigns-as-spacex-refunds-preorders/
From talking to people who have tried to do business there, India is not particularly welcoming to outside companies coming in and selling products without "local partners" owning majority shares and greasing the right palms in the process, so I do not predict that license will be forthcoming any time sooon.
The rapid proliferation of low-Earth orbit satellite constellations came into full-force in 2020. The primary difference in these launches compared to historical launches involved the number of simultaneous deployments, the frequency of deployments, and the scaled use of electronic propulsion for orbit-raising. We examine the impacts of this emerging methodology on the space surveillance mission and the improvements made to date to meet the challenges of this new environment. Starting with pre-launch conjunction assessment, new techniques have been adopted to blend risk mitigation practices, system capabilities, and screening responsiveness. During the launch phase, existing sensor management and tasking processes have evolved to ensure custody of all newly launched objects as well as the existing space catalog. This also drove changes during the object separation phase which required new orbital modeling techniques and analyst expertise to distinguish the clustered objects in a short period of time. Novel approaches towards satellite operator-provided ephemerides, in addition to rapid software upgrades, enabled a new field of orbital analysis which will soon dominate the efforts of resident space object custody. The increase of payloads and data also increased the volume of orbital conjunction assessment data, which drove the need for increased collaboration between data providers and satellite operators to ensure safety of operations in the space domain. Finally, the increase in satellites has resulted in an increase in reporting as satellites re-enter the atmosphere prompting a more efficient approach on how these events are managed and reported.
McKnight said commercial mega-constellations like SpaceX’s Starlink or OneWeb are criticized for compounding the congestion in LEO but these companies should be seen as victims that are increasingly at risk. “Old abandoned massive objects pose greater risk than smaller, more agile constellations,” he added. “Many of these satellite operators are working with mitigation guidelines and operational procedures that are much more stringent than any government guidelines. They’re being safer than what the government’s asking them to do. But they are going to likely have some difficult times in the near future because of debris objects.”
Because there is only a finite amount of spectrum available to LEO broadband systems such as Starlink (which must be shared with other LEO systems within the U.S., according to FCC rules), only a limited amount of capacity can be delivered to users in a given area, regardless of the number of Starlink satellites in the sky.
It is therefore far from clear that Starlink will be capable of serving a comparable number of customers to Viasat and Hughes (i.e. in excess of 500K subscribers), let alone a significant proportion of the millions of homes in the U.S. that currently lack terrestrial broadband, in the medium term.
Overall, while Starlink represents an admirable first attempt to develop a LEO broadband system and bring more choices to rural U.S. consumers, it cannot and will not become the only option for satellite broadband in the U.S. or around the world, because in many areas at least some potential customers will be unable to access Starlink, due to capacity limitations and/or the difficulty of securing a reliable line-of-sight to the constellation.
Tim Farrar is at it again: Starlink's reach won’t be enough to solve rural broadband dilemma — Farrar (https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/starlinks-reach-wont-be-enough-solve-rural-broadband-dilemma-farrar)Quote from: fiercewireless.comBecause there is only a finite amount of spectrum available to LEO broadband systems such as Starlink (which must be shared with other LEO systems within the U.S., according to FCC rules), only a limited amount of capacity can be delivered to users in a given area, regardless of the number of Starlink satellites in the sky.
It is therefore far from clear that Starlink will be capable of serving a comparable number of customers to Viasat and Hughes (i.e. in excess of 500K subscribers), let alone a significant proportion of the millions of homes in the U.S. that currently lack terrestrial broadband, in the medium term.
Overall, while Starlink represents an admirable first attempt to develop a LEO broadband system and bring more choices to rural U.S. consumers, it cannot and will not become the only option for satellite broadband in the U.S. or around the world, because in many areas at least some potential customers will be unable to access Starlink, due to capacity limitations and/or the difficulty of securing a reliable line-of-sight to the constellation.
Starlink will have less than 500K subscribers? We'll see...
"Finite amount of spectrum" is very nearly meaningless, due to spectral reuse. When transmitters are in different locations and the receivers use sufficiently narrow beams, the same frequencies can be reused. Simple example: GEO satellites are at 2-degree longitude separation. Two GEO satellites in adjacent slots can use the same frequencies. The receiver chooses a satellite to use by pointing at it. Same thing happens with the LEO constellations, but it's more complicated because the satellites move with respect to the receivers. At the limit, the number of satellites that can transmit to one spot on the earth depends on how well the receiver can discriminate (how tightly the receiver can focus on the satellite) which is a function of the receiver's antenna size. The GEO arc is fairly full, but we are nowhere near saturating LEO. The earliest LEO constellations concentrated on making sure each spot on the Earth's surface could see at least one satellite, but the laws of physics would let a spot on Earth discriminate more than 100 satellites. As a practical matter there is a huge amount of complexity involved if you try to reach this level, but it's feasible.Tim Farrar is at it again: Starlink's reach won’t be enough to solve rural broadband dilemma — Farrar (https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/starlinks-reach-wont-be-enough-solve-rural-broadband-dilemma-farrar)Quote from: fiercewireless.comBecause there is only a finite amount of spectrum available to LEO broadband systems such as Starlink (which must be shared with other LEO systems within the U.S., according to FCC rules), only a limited amount of capacity can be delivered to users in a given area, regardless of the number of Starlink satellites in the sky.
It is therefore far from clear that Starlink will be capable of serving a comparable number of customers to Viasat and Hughes (i.e. in excess of 500K subscribers), let alone a significant proportion of the millions of homes in the U.S. that currently lack terrestrial broadband, in the medium term.
Overall, while Starlink represents an admirable first attempt to develop a LEO broadband system and bring more choices to rural U.S. consumers, it cannot and will not become the only option for satellite broadband in the U.S. or around the world, because in many areas at least some potential customers will be unable to access Starlink, due to capacity limitations and/or the difficulty of securing a reliable line-of-sight to the constellation.
Starlink will have less than 500K subscribers? We'll see...
It will be interesting to see what kind of response he will have if Starlink gets anywhere close to their long term goal of 10gb connections to its users.
"Finite amount of spectrum" is very nearly meaningless, due to spectral reuse. When transmitters are in different locations and the receivers use sufficiently narrow beams, the same frequencies can be reused. Simple example: GEO satellites are at 2-degree longitude separation. Two GEO satellites in adjacent slots can use the same frequencies. The receiver chooses a satellite to use by pointing at it. Same thing happens with the LEO constellations, but it's more complicated because the satellites move with respect to the receivers. At the limit, the number of satellites that can transmit to one spot on the earth depends on how well the receiver can discriminate (how tightly the receiver can focus on the satellite) which is a function of the receiver's antenna size. The GEO arc is fairly full, but we are nowhere near saturating LEO. The earliest LEO constellations concentrated on making sure each spot on the Earth's surface could see at least one satellite, but the laws of physics would let a spot on Earth discriminate more than 100 satellites. As a practical matter there is a huge amount of complexity involved if you try to reach this level, but it's feasible.Tim Farrar is at it again: Starlink's reach won’t be enough to solve rural broadband dilemma — Farrar (https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/starlinks-reach-wont-be-enough-solve-rural-broadband-dilemma-farrar)Quote from: fiercewireless.comBecause there is only a finite amount of spectrum available to LEO broadband systems such as Starlink (which must be shared with other LEO systems within the U.S., according to FCC rules), only a limited amount of capacity can be delivered to users in a given area, regardless of the number of Starlink satellites in the sky.
It is therefore far from clear that Starlink will be capable of serving a comparable number of customers to Viasat and Hughes (i.e. in excess of 500K subscribers), let alone a significant proportion of the millions of homes in the U.S. that currently lack terrestrial broadband, in the medium term.
Overall, while Starlink represents an admirable first attempt to develop a LEO broadband system and bring more choices to rural U.S. consumers, it cannot and will not become the only option for satellite broadband in the U.S. or around the world, because in many areas at least some potential customers will be unable to access Starlink, due to capacity limitations and/or the difficulty of securing a reliable line-of-sight to the constellation.
Starlink will have less than 500K subscribers? We'll see...
It will be interesting to see what kind of response he will have if Starlink gets anywhere close to their long term goal of 10gb connections to its users.
"line of sight" is another non-problem, given enough satellites. With a minimum constellation designed only to guarantee one satellite in view, then yes, a subscriber needs to see the whole sky. But with lots more satellites, a given user will have at least one satellite visible even if the whole sky is not visible. On average the users will end up seeing the whole sky, so it all works out.
Please note: this is a theoretical analysis. I do not know how it relates to today's Starlink constellation.
Overall, while Starlink represents an admirable first attempt to develop a LEO broadband system and bring more choices to rural U.S. consumers, it cannot and will not become the only option for satellite broadband in the U.S. or around the world, because in many areas at least some potential customers will be unable to access Starlink, due to capacity limitations and/or the difficulty of securing a reliable line-of-sight to the constellation.
The 140,000 number is from November 2021, I believe. They’re likely approaching 200,000 now.As I was trying to point out demand is there but the terminal build rate is not. Considering how long it looks like the terminal plant in Texas will take to get to full level of production. Which my current estimate in this supply chain environment is likely to be sometime in 2023.
I agree 500,000 by end 2024 is a pretty safe assumption. Could easily get there by the end of this year if they can launch at a similar or better rate as last year and terminal deployment overcomes component shortage issues.
Tim Farrar is at it again: Starlink's reach won’t be enough to solve rural broadband dilemma — Farrar (https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/starlinks-reach-wont-be-enough-solve-rural-broadband-dilemma-farrar)Quote from: fiercewireless.comBecause there is only a finite amount of spectrum available to LEO broadband systems such as Starlink (which must be shared with other LEO systems within the U.S., according to FCC rules), only a limited amount of capacity can be delivered to users in a given area, regardless of the number of Starlink satellites in the sky.
It is therefore far from clear that Starlink will be capable of serving a comparable number of customers to Viasat and Hughes (i.e. in excess of 500K subscribers), let alone a significant proportion of the millions of homes in the U.S. that currently lack terrestrial broadband, in the medium term.
Overall, while Starlink represents an admirable first attempt to develop a LEO broadband system and bring more choices to rural U.S. consumers, it cannot and will not become the only option for satellite broadband in the U.S. or around the world, because in many areas at least some potential customers will be unable to access Starlink, due to capacity limitations and/or the difficulty of securing a reliable line-of-sight to the constellation.
I was assuming the use of smaller spots already."Finite amount of spectrum" is very nearly meaningless, due to spectral reuse. When transmitters are in different locations and the receivers use sufficiently narrow beams, the same frequencies can be reused. Simple example: GEO satellites are at 2-degree longitude separation. Two GEO satellites in adjacent slots can use the same frequencies. The receiver chooses a satellite to use by pointing at it. Same thing happens with the LEO constellations, but it's more complicated because the satellites move with respect to the receivers. At the limit, the number of satellites that can transmit to one spot on the earth depends on how well the receiver can discriminate (how tightly the receiver can focus on the satellite) which is a function of the receiver's antenna size. The GEO arc is fairly full, but we are nowhere near saturating LEO. The earliest LEO constellations concentrated on making sure each spot on the Earth's surface could see at least one satellite, but the laws of physics would let a spot on Earth discriminate more than 100 satellites. As a practical matter there is a huge amount of complexity involved if you try to reach this level, but it's feasible.Tim Farrar is at it again: Starlink's reach won’t be enough to solve rural broadband dilemma — Farrar (https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/starlinks-reach-wont-be-enough-solve-rural-broadband-dilemma-farrar)Quote from: fiercewireless.comBecause there is only a finite amount of spectrum available to LEO broadband systems such as Starlink (which must be shared with other LEO systems within the U.S., according to FCC rules), only a limited amount of capacity can be delivered to users in a given area, regardless of the number of Starlink satellites in the sky.
It is therefore far from clear that Starlink will be capable of serving a comparable number of customers to Viasat and Hughes (i.e. in excess of 500K subscribers), let alone a significant proportion of the millions of homes in the U.S. that currently lack terrestrial broadband, in the medium term.
Overall, while Starlink represents an admirable first attempt to develop a LEO broadband system and bring more choices to rural U.S. consumers, it cannot and will not become the only option for satellite broadband in the U.S. or around the world, because in many areas at least some potential customers will be unable to access Starlink, due to capacity limitations and/or the difficulty of securing a reliable line-of-sight to the constellation.
Starlink will have less than 500K subscribers? We'll see...
It will be interesting to see what kind of response he will have if Starlink gets anywhere close to their long term goal of 10gb connections to its users.
"line of sight" is another non-problem, given enough satellites. With a minimum constellation designed only to guarantee one satellite in view, then yes, a subscriber needs to see the whole sky. But with lots more satellites, a given user will have at least one satellite visible even if the whole sky is not visible. On average the users will end up seeing the whole sky, so it all works out.
Please note: this is a theoretical analysis. I do not know how it relates to today's Starlink constellation.
Spectrum reuse is limited by the allowable power flux at the Earth's surface.
Yes, making the receiver bigger helps. So does making it more efficient. But the biggest opportunity IMO is to make the spot beam tighter, by a combination of lower satellites and larger satellite-side transmitter antennas. This keeps the power flux constant, but means that the area that was formerly served by 1 beam is now served by 2, or 3 or more... each of which can reuse the same spectrum and thus serve 2x, or 3x, or more users.
The V-band VLEO constellation is already using smaller cell sizes than the Ka/Ku band constellation. So with the same efficiencies to can serve more customers per hertz of spectrum used.
While it would be true if you were talking all rural broadband, I actually disagree because he mentions *satellite* broadband. Starlink has more satellites in orbit than all other such services combined, so Starlink has better line of site than all others combined. Capacity limitations have a similar argument, although literally today that might be true it’s extremely unlikely in the medium term.
Tim F has lost credibility, from claiming firm sources that ended up undercounting the number of satellites per launch before Starlink v0.9, to claiming SpaceX had entirely abandoned the idea of laser links to claiming they couldn’t use the dense stack of cards deployment method with lasers… I’m not sure why anyone considers him credible any more.
SpaceX has over 140,000 subscribers. It won’t take very long for them to reach 500,000. I predict by end of 2024.
Higher frequencies allow smaller antennas with the same directivity, so V-band antennas are smaller. At the extreme, use lasers. But higher frequencies suffer much more from rain, clouds and other atmospheric effects. C-band gets through easily, while Ku, Ka, V, ...,infrared, visible, ....) suffer progressively more. But the effects are fairly local, so a theoretical fully integrated system could use the lower frequencies for customers whose higher frequencies are degraded. (back to the days of the old 4-foot diameter C-band dish, though.)
Agreed. But… He goes farther than “will not” (which as you say is trivial… Viasat and others will operate their satellites until they fail even if there is no upgrade) and says /cannot/.While it would be true if you were talking all rural broadband, I actually disagree because he mentions *satellite* broadband. Starlink has more satellites in orbit than all other such services combined, so Starlink has better line of site than all others combined. Capacity limitations have a similar argument, although literally today that might be true it’s extremely unlikely in the medium term.
Tim F has lost credibility, from claiming firm sources that ended up undercounting the number of satellites per launch before Starlink v0.9, to claiming SpaceX had entirely abandoned the idea of laser links to claiming they couldn’t use the dense stack of cards deployment method with lasers… I’m not sure why anyone considers him credible any more.
SpaceX has over 140,000 subscribers. It won’t take very long for them to reach 500,000. I predict by end of 2024.
He said Starlink won't be the only option for sat broadband worldwide. Which is almost certainly true, but not very meaningful. Some countries will prefer domestic competitors, and may refuse to license Starlink or emplace onerous requirements for that reason. The GEO companies serving direct to consumer internet are also probably going to stick around, but their revenues are going to take a big hit.
The 500k is a US-only figure. The claim that they can't reach that in the US is silly. It's probably technically possible for Starlink to service that many US customers with only the 1800 sats in orbit today, while still keeping the 95% percentile speed above 50 Mbps, if they could get the dish components they need.Higher frequencies allow smaller antennas with the same directivity, so V-band antennas are smaller. At the extreme, use lasers. But higher frequencies suffer much more from rain, clouds and other atmospheric effects. C-band gets through easily, while Ku, Ka, V, ...,infrared, visible, ....) suffer progressively more. But the effects are fairly local, so a theoretical fully integrated system could use the lower frequencies for customers whose higher frequencies are degraded. (back to the days of the old 4-foot diameter C-band dish, though.)
I mentioned the V-band constellation because they are in lower orbits, so they will have smaller beam spots even with the same beam angle. I think the Gen2 constellation, which is partly at lower orbits, is Ka/Ku band so it should be decent in the rain too.
Rain fade is important in Ku and even more important in Ka. If you have real-time info on your customers' error performance, you can watch a storm front move through an area on a map as the little dots drop off the net and then come back.Agreed. But… He goes farther than “will not” (which as you say is trivial… Viasat and others will operate their satellites until they fail even if there is no upgrade) and says /cannot/.While it would be true if you were talking all rural broadband, I actually disagree because he mentions *satellite* broadband. Starlink has more satellites in orbit than all other such services combined, so Starlink has better line of site than all others combined. Capacity limitations have a similar argument, although literally today that might be true it’s extremely unlikely in the medium term.
Tim F has lost credibility, from claiming firm sources that ended up undercounting the number of satellites per launch before Starlink v0.9, to claiming SpaceX had entirely abandoned the idea of laser links to claiming they couldn’t use the dense stack of cards deployment method with lasers… I’m not sure why anyone considers him credible any more.
SpaceX has over 140,000 subscribers. It won’t take very long for them to reach 500,000. I predict by end of 2024.
He said Starlink won't be the only option for sat broadband worldwide. Which is almost certainly true, but not very meaningful. Some countries will prefer domestic competitors, and may refuse to license Starlink or emplace onerous requirements for that reason. The GEO companies serving direct to consumer internet are also probably going to stick around, but their revenues are going to take a big hit.
The 500k is a US-only figure. The claim that they can't reach that in the US is silly. It's probably technically possible for Starlink to service that many US customers with only the 1800 sats in orbit today, while still keeping the 95% percentile speed above 50 Mbps, if they could get the dish components they need.Higher frequencies allow smaller antennas with the same directivity, so V-band antennas are smaller. At the extreme, use lasers. But higher frequencies suffer much more from rain, clouds and other atmospheric effects. C-band gets through easily, while Ku, Ka, V, ...,infrared, visible, ....) suffer progressively more. But the effects are fairly local, so a theoretical fully integrated system could use the lower frequencies for customers whose higher frequencies are degraded. (back to the days of the old 4-foot diameter C-band dish, though.)
I mentioned the V-band constellation because they are in lower orbits, so they will have smaller beam spots even with the same beam angle. I think the Gen2 constellation, which is partly at lower orbits, is Ka/Ku band so it should be decent in the rain too.
Unless the heavy rainfall is on top of the Starlink terminal it is unlikely to drop out. Currently with lower sat density it is aggravated but as sat numbers increase then the number of alternate link paths that do not go through a fade condition increases. So in the long term atmospheric effects will become less and less of a problem. This is true for all the LEO constellation broadband comm systems.Rain fade is important in Ku and even more important in Ka. If you have real-time info on your customers' error performance, you can watch a storm front move through an area on a map as the little dots drop off the net and then come back.Agreed. But… He goes farther than “will not” (which as you say is trivial… Viasat and others will operate their satellites until they fail even if there is no upgrade) and says /cannot/.While it would be true if you were talking all rural broadband, I actually disagree because he mentions *satellite* broadband. Starlink has more satellites in orbit than all other such services combined, so Starlink has better line of site than all others combined. Capacity limitations have a similar argument, although literally today that might be true it’s extremely unlikely in the medium term.
Tim F has lost credibility, from claiming firm sources that ended up undercounting the number of satellites per launch before Starlink v0.9, to claiming SpaceX had entirely abandoned the idea of laser links to claiming they couldn’t use the dense stack of cards deployment method with lasers… I’m not sure why anyone considers him credible any more.
SpaceX has over 140,000 subscribers. It won’t take very long for them to reach 500,000. I predict by end of 2024.
He said Starlink won't be the only option for sat broadband worldwide. Which is almost certainly true, but not very meaningful. Some countries will prefer domestic competitors, and may refuse to license Starlink or emplace onerous requirements for that reason. The GEO companies serving direct to consumer internet are also probably going to stick around, but their revenues are going to take a big hit.
The 500k is a US-only figure. The claim that they can't reach that in the US is silly. It's probably technically possible for Starlink to service that many US customers with only the 1800 sats in orbit today, while still keeping the 95% percentile speed above 50 Mbps, if they could get the dish components they need.Higher frequencies allow smaller antennas with the same directivity, so V-band antennas are smaller. At the extreme, use lasers. But higher frequencies suffer much more from rain, clouds and other atmospheric effects. C-band gets through easily, while Ku, Ka, V, ...,infrared, visible, ....) suffer progressively more. But the effects are fairly local, so a theoretical fully integrated system could use the lower frequencies for customers whose higher frequencies are degraded. (back to the days of the old 4-foot diameter C-band dish, though.)
I mentioned the V-band constellation because they are in lower orbits, so they will have smaller beam spots even with the same beam angle. I think the Gen2 constellation, which is partly at lower orbits, is Ka/Ku band so it should be decent in the rain too.
If that 140,000 number is correct that is a gain of 50,000 in a period of about 6 months. Such that late this summer or early fall the subscribers numbers will be 200,000. In am still awaiting the new terminal factory to become operational. Once it does since the subscriber count growth rate is dependent on available terminals and not demand. Because demand is outstripping the terminal supply and continues growing. Expect the subscriber growth rate to increase by a factor of 4 to 10 after the plant goes online. Such that subscriber growth would be per year somewhere between 400,000 to 1,000,000 per year. Once this occurs then the demand limitations will start to play a part but likely not until subscriber totals reach a couple million. All of this will likely mean the subscribers will reach 1,000,000 by end of 2024 and possibly significantly more depending on the length of time the new plant had been in operation.
Robotbeat, your estimate of 500,000 should be considered the minimum. To determine the most likely to many unknowns have to be resolved to get a clearer picture of how fast subscriber growth will become. Because until production of terminals matches or exceeds the demand, the true subscriber growth curves and predictions will have very wide min and max range numbers.
While it would be true if you were talking all rural broadband, I actually disagree because he mentions *satellite* broadband. Starlink has more satellites in orbit than all other such services combined, so Starlink has better line of site than all others combined. Capacity limitations have a similar argument, although literally today that might be true it’s extremely unlikely in the medium term.I don't think that's strictly true.
Tim F has lost credibility, from claiming firm sources that ended up undercounting the number of satellites per launch before Starlink v0.9, to claiming SpaceX had entirely abandoned the idea of laser links to claiming they couldn’t use the dense stack of cards deployment method with lasers… I’m not sure why anyone considers him credible any more.
SpaceX has over 140,000 subscribers. It won’t take very long for them to reach 500,000. I predict by end of 2024.
Tim Farrar is at it again...
Tim Farrar is at it again: Starlink's reach won’t be enough to solve rural broadband dilemma — Farrar (https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/starlinks-reach-wont-be-enough-solve-rural-broadband-dilemma-farrar)Quote from: fiercewireless.comBecause there is only a finite amount of spectrum available to LEO broadband systems such as Starlink (which must be shared with other LEO systems within the U.S., according to FCC rules), only a limited amount of capacity can be delivered to users in a given area, regardless of the number of Starlink satellites in the sky.
It is therefore far from clear that Starlink will be capable of serving a comparable number of customers to Viasat and Hughes (i.e. in excess of 500K subscribers), let alone a significant proportion of the millions of homes in the U.S. that currently lack terrestrial broadband, in the medium term.
Overall, while Starlink represents an admirable first attempt to develop a LEO broadband system and bring more choices to rural U.S. consumers, it cannot and will not become the only option for satellite broadband in the U.S. or around the world, because in many areas at least some potential customers will be unable to access Starlink, due to capacity limitations and/or the difficulty of securing a reliable line-of-sight to the constellation.
Starlink will have less than 500K subscribers? We'll see...
It will be interesting to see what kind of response he will have if Starlink gets anywhere close to their long term goal of 10gb connections to its users.
I mentioned the V-band constellation because they are in lower orbits, so they will have smaller beam spots even with the same beam angle. I think the Gen2 constellation, which is partly at lower orbits, is Ka/Ku band so it should be decent in the rain too.
A bad batch?
Starlink launch V1.0-L22 consists of 60 satellites launched in Mar 2021. 12 of them have now been lowered to reentry after being held at 350 km (not orbit raising to operational service) - a 20% failure rate.
As the height-vs-time diagram shows, many of the ones that were in service were held back for a while too. Contrast with V1.0-L23 (launch Apr 2021) where all 60 sats are in service after a more systematic plane-drift-then-raise campaign
To be clear, the L22 sats "failed" in the sense of not being used for operational service. But their propulsion systems remained operable and they were safely disposed of, so they were NOT drifting space junk (until the last few days before reentry)
What is clear is that expectations for what Starlink can achieve in terms of closing the broadband gap in the U.S. must remain realistic. Fortunately, most of the commentators who made hyperbolic statements a couple of years ago that the U.S. should rely on Starlink instead of building more fiber have quieted down. However, some Wall Street firms still predict huge growth that supports a $100 billion-plus valuation for SpaceX, perhaps motivated by their desire to lead a future SpaceX IPO. To some degree, SpaceX itself was at pains to downplay expectations during 2021 and emphasize that Starlink will only be the best solution for the last few percent of users in rural areas. But that was also the route that Iridium took in the 1990s. When it became clear that satellite phones wouldn’t provide a realistic alternative to terrestrial cellular because of high costs and the inability to operate in most buildings, Iridium’s mantra became that it only needed 1% of the cellular market to be hugely successful. Today, it is far from clear that Starlink can achieve what it promised in winning bids to serve 600,000-plus homes in the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction, without its much more ambitious version 2 constellation. And if the market for consumer satellite broadband does not grow dramatically, then that version 2 system — and the whole Starlink plan — may eventually crumble.
We will not know one way or the other about the ultimate size of this market during 2022, but with SpaceX representing the lynchpin of the NewSpace ecosystem, the risk has never been greater that we will ultimately see a repeat of the 1999-2001 crash in the satellite sector.
LOL, it’s already different. Already Starlink is bigger than Teledesic was ever going to be and it has like 140,000-200,000 users.
Sucks for Tim and employer ViaSat.
Doing a very rough approximation of capabilities between the two:
Area x Aperture efficiency x Maximum Transmit Duty Cycle:
UT1: 1809.5 cm2 x 57% x 11% = 113.5
New UT: 1030.1 cm2 x 74% x 14% = 144.2
New UT about 27% more capable.How about the new dish?new dish is 50 x 30 cm, antenna size 48 x 29 cm
BUT!!! is very important that
Aperture efficiency is 74% (for UT1 is only 57%)
Maximum Transmit Duty Cycle is 14% (for UT1 is only11%)
Summary - Gain is the same, Download speed the same , Upload speed will be about 25% better..
Each StarLink satellite has 16 beams and can serve 2000+ users
more
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/each-starlink-satellite-has-16-beams-can-serve-2000-users-pekhterev/
Each StarLink satellite has 16 beams and can serve 2000+ users
more
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/each-starlink-satellite-has-16-beams-can-serve-2000-users-pekhterev/
Interestingly, there is a reply to that LinkedIn article that says each satellite has 3 downlink antennas and 1 uplink antennas, and each can do 8 beams x 2 polarizations, for a total of 48 beams down and 16 up. That is quite a few potential customers, though obviously still not something that can serve cities. No idea if the person replying is correct, of course, but it seems like pretty specific information.
Apologies for cluttering the feed, but after many failed searches I'll just post and ask for forgiveness later.
I want to know what the technical reason for not being able to port forward dishy? If someone can explain or link any past replies about the subject that would be great.
(I work in A/V and have lots of clients that want high-speeds in the middle of no where... but it is hard to integrate with rti/control4 etc without this, usually end up using starlink just for keystones, ap..)
I want to know what the technical reason for not being able to port forward dishy? If someone can explain or link any past replies about the subject that would be great.
What IP address does Starlink provide?
Starlink today currently provides a DHCP issued Carrier Grade NAT (CGNAT) non-routable IPv4 address in the 100.64.0.0/10 range.
Note - as Starlink continues to expand and upgrade our global internet service infrastructure and rollout new capabilities, some users may see different IP address behavior (ex. publicly routable addresses, IPv6, non-CGNAT)
Will Starlink provide a publicly routable DHCP or Static IP IPv4 address?
Yes. Starlink plans to support this functionality in the future. We do not yet have an estimated time when this will be available to customers.
Starlink Premium has more than double the antenna capability of Starlink, delivering faster internet speeds and higher throughput for the highest demand users, including businesses. Order now to reserve, deliveries start in Q2 2022.
Designed specifically for high demand users, Starlink Premium helps ensure bandwidth for critical operations even during times of peak network usage.
Starlink Premium users can expect download speeds of 150-500 Mbps and latency of 20-40ms, enabling high throughput connectivity for small offices, storefronts, and super users across the globe.
With Starlink, there are no long-term contracts, no data caps, and no exclusivity requirements.
Your Starlink Premium Kit arrives with everything you need to get online including your Starlink, wifi router, cables and base.
Starlink Premium is designed for improved performance in extreme weather conditions. Users will also benefit from 24/7, prioritized support.
Starlink Premium service: https://www.starlink.com/premiumQuoteStarlink Premium has more than double the antenna capability of Starlink, delivering faster internet speeds and higher throughput for the highest demand users, including businesses. Order now to reserve, deliveries start in Q2 2022.
Designed specifically for high demand users, Starlink Premium helps ensure bandwidth for critical operations even during times of peak network usage.
Starlink Premium users can expect download speeds of 150-500 Mbps and latency of 20-40ms, enabling high throughput connectivity for small offices, storefronts, and super users across the globe.
With Starlink, there are no long-term contracts, no data caps, and no exclusivity requirements.
Your Starlink Premium Kit arrives with everything you need to get online including your Starlink, wifi router, cables and base.
Starlink Premium is designed for improved performance in extreme weather conditions. Users will also benefit from 24/7, prioritized support.
I want to know what the technical reason for not being able to port forward dishy? If someone can explain or link any past replies about the subject that would be great.
Current information from https://support.starlink.com:QuoteWhat IP address does Starlink provide?
Starlink today currently provides a DHCP issued Carrier Grade NAT (CGNAT) non-routable IPv4 address in the 100.64.0.0/10 range.
Note - as Starlink continues to expand and upgrade our global internet service infrastructure and rollout new capabilities, some users may see different IP address behavior (ex. publicly routable addresses, IPv6, non-CGNAT)
Will Starlink provide a publicly routable DHCP or Static IP IPv4 address?
Yes. Starlink plans to support this functionality in the future. We do not yet have an estimated time when this will be available to customers.
// It is mistake . Antenna can receive or trasmit 1..5..10..20..50 beams. But important another : you have in Ka 2000 MHz in 2 polarisation. Total are 4000 MHz (it is for service and TT&C beams) . Beam in Ku is 240 MHz . 4000 /240 bp 16 plus something fot TT&S and intervals between beamsEach StarLink satellite has 16 beams and can serve 2000+ users
more
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/each-starlink-satellite-has-16-beams-can-serve-2000-users-pekhterev/
Interestingly, there is a reply to that LinkedIn article that says each satellite has 3 downlink antennas and 1 uplink antennas, and each can do 8 beams x 2 polarizations, for a total of 48 beams down and 16 up. That is quite a few potential customers, though obviously still not something that can serve cities. No idea if the person replying is correct, of course, but it seems like pretty specific information.
However, it's not clear what the minimum angular separation is needed to reuse downlink channels, or that each antenna can use each channel exactly once per polarization.
However, it's not clear what the minimum angular separation is needed to reuse downlink channels, or that each antenna can use each channel exactly once per polarization.
If we have in fider link in Ka (between GW and Sat) only the same 2000 MHz (or 4000 MHz in both polarisation), frequency reuse in Ku impossible - no additional capacity for it ..
I want to know what the technical reason for not being able to port forward dishy? If someone can explain or link any past replies about the subject that would be great.
Current information from https://support.starlink.com:QuoteWhat IP address does Starlink provide?
Starlink today currently provides a DHCP issued Carrier Grade NAT (CGNAT) non-routable IPv4 address in the 100.64.0.0/10 range.
Note - as Starlink continues to expand and upgrade our global internet service infrastructure and rollout new capabilities, some users may see different IP address behavior (ex. publicly routable addresses, IPv6, non-CGNAT)
Will Starlink provide a publicly routable DHCP or Static IP IPv4 address?
Yes. Starlink plans to support this functionality in the future. We do not yet have an estimated time when this will be available to customers.
So what does this mean to me, a simple residential user planning to use Starlink for streaming and gaming and such? Is there any capability I'm losing compared to Viasat?
WASHINGTON: The United States, in an official “note verbale” to the United Nations, has refuted China’s unusual diplomatic accusation that SpaceX’s Starlink satellites have endangered, and continue to endanger, its crewed space station.
“If there had been a significant probability of collision involving the China Space Station, the United States would have provided a close approach notification directly to the designated Chinese point of contact,” asserts the Jan. 28 missive filed with the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs in Vienna.
Beijing, in its own Dec. 3 note verbale to the same UN office, complained that on two occasions — once in July 2020 and once in October 2021 — the station’s newest core module, Tianhe, had to dodge a Starlink to avoid a crash. The complaint also asked the UN to “remind States parties” (i.e. the United States) about their obligations under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty to ensure that their space operators follow the treaty’s provisions. The move was politically odd, both in the fact that it seemingly came out of the blue and that the Office of Outer Space Affairs has no official role in mediating such disputes.
SpaceX standard antenna production rises rapidly this year, so those with orders shouldn’t have to wait long.
Note, Starlink can only support a limited number of users in an area, so best to order early.
There are multiple ground station antennas per sat, too.
No. Handoffs take about a second. They're not going to keep half their ground capability shut down waiting for one.There are multiple ground station antennas per sat, too.
definitely not. The satellite has only 2 Ka-band parabolic antennas, and only works with 1 gateway at all times. One antenna is working, the second is aimed at another gateway for handover..
No. Handoffs take about a second. They're not going to keep half their ground capability shut down waiting for one.There are multiple ground station antennas per sat, too.
definitely not. The satellite has only 2 Ka-band parabolic antennas, and only works with 1 gateway at all times. One antenna is working, the second is aimed at another gateway for handover..
No. Handoffs take about a second. They're not going to keep half their ground capability shut down waiting for one.Design OneWEB & StarLink Gen1 is very similar, you can say Musk in 2016 copied the first version of StarLink from OneWEB. And OneWEB described everything in detail and unambiguously in its application for the FSS from 2016.
Design OneWEB & StarLink Gen1 is very similar, you can say Musk in 2016 copied the first version of StarLink from OneWEB
we can say that Wyler copied (borderline with stolen) the design he was doing for Google. The design(patents and everything) which were transferred later to SpaceX.No. Handoffs take about a second. They're not going to keep half their ground capability shut down waiting for one.Design OneWEB & StarLink Gen1 is very similar, you can say Musk in 2016 copied the first version of StarLink from OneWEB. And OneWEB described everything in detail and unambiguously in its application for the FSS from 2016.
//Each OneWeb satellite will have 16 nominally identical user beams, operating in Ku-band, each
consisting of a non-steerable highly-elliptical spot beam. There are also two identical steerable
gateway beam antennas, operating in Ka-band, on each OneWeb satellite, and each of these
antennas creates an independently steerable circular spot beam. The 16 Ka-band uplink channels
in one gateway receive beam (the one tracking the servicing gateway) are converted to 16 Kuband downlink channels, each one routed to one of the 16 user beams (“forward links”),
nominally at 250 MHz bandwidth. Additionally, 16 different Ku-band uplink channels from the
same 16 user beams are converted to 16 Ka-band downlink channels and sent back to the same
gateway transmit beam (“return links”), each having a nominal channel bandwidth of 125 MHz.
The second gateway beam is tracking the next gateway earth station for handover procedures
No operator in their right mind will interrupt the service for a while while the antenna is slowly tuned to another gateway. strange to talk about this in 2022
No. Handoffs take about a second. They're not going to keep half their ground capability shut down waiting for one.
I certainly don't get my information by claiming Starlinks are the same as OneWebs or any other of the utter nonsense you continually post in here. Most of your knowledge of how anything works was outdated twenty years ago.No. Handoffs take about a second. They're not going to keep half their ground capability shut down waiting for one.
P.P.S. You have no slightest idea what are you talking about: "slowly tuned to" is perfect example of many.
Are you saying that setting up to another gateway takes less than 1 second?? And where can you read about it?
Most of your knowledge of how anything works was outdated twenty years ago.//I cited data from the OneWEB application to FCC from 2016, can you at least somehow refute these calculations ??
What OneWeb does and is capable of has nothing to do with what what Starlink satellites do. There is no need to refute something that is irrelevant to the topic.Most of your knowledge of how anything works was outdated twenty years ago.//I cited data from the OneWEB application to FCC from 2016, can you at least somehow refute these calculations ??
so show me your calculations of the linkbudget for this case, I will be happy to look at them..
However, it's not clear what the minimum angular separation is needed to reuse downlink channels, or that each antenna can use each channel exactly once per polarization.This is going to be on the order of the beamwidth. Most likely the beams should be separated by the angle between the first nulls, known as the first null beamwidth. As a reasonable approximation, this is probably around double the more commonly discussed half power beamwidth. Various practical concerns such as processing throughput and RF architecture will determine how many beams can be actually handled at a time. We simply do not have the information required to make reasonable guesses about how many times each frequency/polarization combination can be reused on each satellite. The best we could do is work backwards from the throughput per satellite, but I think there is a possibility that has changed with the most recent satellites, as it has been a while since I have seen a number quoted by SpaceX for that.
Nomadd's point about your knowledge being out of date doesn't need anything as much as even a link budget to support it. It just needs simple facts like that a phased array antenna can transmit (or receive) different data in 2 (or more) different directions at the same frequency and polarization. There is some hardware complexity cost, and ultimately on-board processing capability may be the limiting factor, but this is something that you have repeatedly ignored or denied.
Feeder lines? What are you talking about? This is a phased array not a monolithic antenna and the way to describe its architecture is simply different, there is not some single "feeder line" but separate signals transmitted by many different elements in an array. Your question does not make sense, it is like asking how someone holding 2 buckets with 1 gallon each can possibly carry 2 gallons when the size of their buckets is only 1 gallon. Just like opposing polarizations are different buckets, so is angular separation. You are the one who has repeatedly made baseless assertions about Starlink based purely on ignoring the facts about how phased arrays work.Nomadd's point about your knowledge being out of date doesn't need anything as much as even a link budget to support it. It just needs simple facts like that a phased array antenna can transmit (or receive) different data in 2 (or more) different directions at the same frequency and polarization. There is some hardware complexity cost, and ultimately on-board processing capability may be the limiting factor, but this is something that you have repeatedly ignored or denied.
again a lot of words about my "outdated" knowledge instead of just a short reference to an example of how a satellite with feeder lines of 4000 MHz was able to organize service channels with a total bandwidth of, for example, 8000 MHz. Why is there not a single example of this since 2016, when SpaceX submitted its application?? Although dozens of HTS satellites with frequency reuse are already operating in the world??
Are you saying that setting up to another gateway takes less than 1 second?? And where can you read about it?No. Handoffs take about a second. They're not going to keep half their ground capability shut down waiting for one.
P.P.S. You have no slightest idea what are you talking about: "slowly tuned to" is perfect example of many.
Feeder lines? What are you talking about? This is a phased array not a monolithic antenna and the way to describe its architecture is simply different, there is not some single "feeder line" but separate signals transmitted by many different elements in an array. Your question does not make sense, it is like asking how someone holding 2 buckets with 1 gallon each can possibly carry 2 gallons
//
Please try to do the most minimal amount of research before posting, it really doesn't look good when you act like an expert but get basic facts wrong.
Not a feeder line. You said line now you changed it to link. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_line. (note that the article explicitly lists "feeder" as an alternate term, so this is a closer match to what you wrote than "feeder link") Either way doesn't change the important part of I wrote, it is still an irrelevant term to what I was talking about.Feeder lines? What are you talking about? This is a phased array not a monolithic antenna and the way to describe its architecture is simply different, there is not some single "feeder line" but separate signals transmitted by many different elements in an array. Your question does not make sense, it is like asking how someone holding 2 buckets with 1 gallon each can possibly carry 2 gallons
//
Please try to do the most minimal amount of research before posting, it really doesn't look good when you act like an expert but get basic facts wrong.
Oh my god, do you Google sometimes?? or not at all aware of elementary terms in the satcom industry??
Okay, let's start with the elementary:
A feeder link is
Earth Station in our case is parabolic Antenna +50 W tranceiver+modem on GateWay ... Space Station - StarLink satellite with parabolic antennaAnd all this proves is that you refuse to pay attention. The subject in my post was the number of beams that may be transmitted or received from the phased arrays on the satellite. Anything involving parabolic antennas remains irrelevant, so whether you meant to write line or link, you are still simply changing the subject.
And Link between GW and Sats is feeder link.
For feeder link SpaceX can use 2000 MHz in Ka band in both polarisation divided in channels 500 MHz orI will ask you to apologize, for insulting me, but I will not ask for technical explanations of RF from someone who does not know that the technical capabilities of a parabolic dish and a phased array have fundamental differences. How bands are divided and what modulation is used does nothing to change the fact that a phased array can transmit or receive distinct signals at the exact same frequency and polarization from different directions.
250 MHz or 125 MHz or 62,5 MHz. Theoretically one 500 MHz channel can transmit up to 4000 Mbit (for 64QAM). For all 4000 MHz are 32 Gbit. (I hope you know where these values are given?? Minimal amount of research is needed for it) ..
And I hope you understand why in real StarLink network these values are unreachable..
If not - ask me..
Remember how we talk about space weather and geomagnetic storms and how they can affect our satellites in orbit… update on the #Starlink satellites launched last week, lost to a geomagnetic storm on Friday.
https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1491209745839300610
So that solar flare did a number on the recent batch. Operationally that sucks for them (or for that matter anybody else doing very low insertions during a solar cycle uptick), but to what extent is that avoidable, other than higher insertions? I would imagine anybody using chemical propulsion wouldn't be having a good day either if they started low as well...
As I understand it (probably incorrectly) the other reason to start in a lower orbit is increased precession rate. When one launch has satellites for multiple planes, you can wait for precession to shift a satellite's plane before you raise the orbit.So that solar flare did a number on the recent batch. Operationally that sucks for them (or for that matter anybody else doing very low insertions during a solar cycle uptick), but to what extent is that avoidable, other than higher insertions? I would imagine anybody using chemical propulsion wouldn't be having a good day either if they started low as well...
Starting that low then boosting to a higher orbit is kind of unique to starlink. Many GEO transfer orbits have perigees that low, but spend very little time that low, so it has little effect. ( I do remember one launch, where they didn't properly take into account lunar effects on the transfer orbit and almost lost the satellites. EDIT: looked it up Atlas IIAS AC-163 Superbird 6 in 2004)
That said, I do wonder if the penalty from the dogleg going south played into them starting in a lower initial orbit. Seems to prevent a repeat they need to launch to a higher orbit by either offloading more satellites or switching back to launching on the ascending node. Both are tradeoffs, but on the surface the switch to the descending node for better weather seems to have not paid off in this case.
Not a feeder line. You said line now you changed it to link. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_line. (note that the article explicitly lists "feeder" as an alternate term, so this is a closer match to what you wrote than "feeder link") Either way doesn't change the important part of I wrote, it is still an irrelevant term to what I was talking about.Feeder lines? What are you talking about? This is a phased array not a monolithic antenna and the way to describe its architecture is simply different, there is not some single "feeder line" but separate signals transmitted by many different elements in an array. Your question does not make sense, it is like asking how someone holding 2 buckets with 1 gallon each can possibly carry 2 gallons
//
Please try to do the most minimal amount of research before posting, it really doesn't look good when you act like an expert but get basic facts wrong.
Oh my god, do you Google sometimes?? or not at all aware of elementary terms in the satcom industry??
Okay, let's start with the elementary:
A feeder link is
You can claim a typo if you want, but blaming me for your own mistake is insulting.Earth Station in our case is parabolic Antenna +50 W tranceiver+modem on GateWay ... Space Station - StarLink satellite with parabolic antennaAnd all this proves is that you refuse to pay attention. The subject in my post was the number of beams that may be transmitted or received from the phased arrays on the satellite. Anything involving parabolic antennas remains irrelevant, so whether you meant to write line or link, you are still simply changing the subject.
And Link between GW and Sats is feeder link.For feeder link SpaceX can use 2000 MHz in Ka band in both polarisation divided in channels 500 MHz orI will ask you to apologize, for insulting me, but I will not ask for technical explanations of RF from someone who does not know that the technical capabilities of a parabolic dish and a phased array have fundamental differences. How bands are divided and what modulation is used does nothing to change the fact that a phased array can transmit or receive distinct signals at the exact same frequency and polarization from different directions.
250 MHz or 125 MHz or 62,5 MHz. Theoretically one 500 MHz channel can transmit up to 4000 Mbit (for 64QAM). For all 4000 MHz are 32 Gbit. (I hope you know where these values are given?? Minimal amount of research is needed for it) ..
And I hope you understand why in real StarLink network these values are unreachable..
If not - ask me..
I would imagine anybody using chemical propulsion wouldn't be having a good day either if they started low as well...
As I understand it (probably incorrectly) the other reason to start in a lower orbit is increased precession rate. When one launch has satellites for multiple planes, you can wait for precession to shift a satellite's plane before you raise the orbit.So that solar flare did a number on the recent batch. Operationally that sucks for them (or for that matter anybody else doing very low insertions during a solar cycle uptick), but to what extent is that avoidable, other than higher insertions? I would imagine anybody using chemical propulsion wouldn't be having a good day either if they started low as well...
Starting that low then boosting to a higher orbit is kind of unique to starlink. Many GEO transfer orbits have perigees that low, but spend very little time that low, so it has little effect. ( I do remember one launch, where they didn't properly take into account lunar effects on the transfer orbit and almost lost the satellites. EDIT: looked it up Atlas IIAS AC-163 Superbird 6 in 2004)
That said, I do wonder if the penalty from the dogleg going south played into them starting in a lower initial orbit. Seems to prevent a repeat they need to launch to a higher orbit by either offloading more satellites or switching back to launching on the ascending node. Both are tradeoffs, but on the surface the switch to the descending node for better weather seems to have not paid off in this case.
1) "link and line". Yes, this is my mistake. In my native language both words have the same meaning. And I mistakenly used a "line" here. I apologize.Thank you.
2) The ability of the FAR Antenna is known to me - I know about 16 beams from 3 DownLink Antennas on Sat. I never questioned that "a phased array can transmit or receive distinct signals at the exact same frequency and polarization from different directions." The only add-on : StarLink FAR uses only one polarization..You are contradicting yourself here. If you understood phased arrays, you would not be making the claim about the number of beams. There is no public information we can use to reliably determine this number. You previously pointed to an article that did 8 frequency bands times 2 polarizations to reach this 16 number and which showed no understanding of the capability to receive/transmit from an arbitrary number of different directions at the same time. You also linked to an irrelevant document about OneWeb to make the 16 beam claim. This claim inherently is based on denial of ability to transmit or receive an arbitrary number simultaneous beams from a phased array.
3) The comment thread is dedicated specifically to the feeder link, since I have seen in Internet the statements of individual commentators that StarLink uses 2 feeder lines at the same time, each of the 2 antennas with its own gateway, which I consider impossible.First of all, no, this thread goes back to me pointing out one of you many incorrect claims you have made. I have only been talking about the phased arrays and you changed the subject.
3) The comment thread is dedicated specifically to the feeder link, since I have seen in Internet the statements of individual commentators that StarLink uses 2 feeder lines at the same time, each of the 2 antennas with its own gateway, which I consider impossible.
Second, this claim of "impossible" ranks as one of the most absurd things I have ever seen you write (which is saying something.) Claiming that 2 separate parabolic antennas cannot be pointed in different directions and used at the same time is far more obviously wrong than the same fact about a single phased array. I hadn't bothered to point this one out, because I was under the assumption that you had actually read the other recent posts that pointed out how absurd that claim is. (Others have already ripped this claim to shreds, so reply to their points on that.)
Stagger the transfers. Unless it takes as long to repoint an antenna as it takes to pass over a ground station you gain some capacity without any increase in dead time. That does require managing traffic for quality of service, but Starlink has to do that anyway, and it's easier if you have more capacity.3) The comment thread is dedicated specifically to the feeder link, since I have seen in Internet the statements of individual commentators that StarLink uses 2 feeder lines at the same time, each of the 2 antennas with its own gateway, which I consider impossible.
The only reason you gave to support this being impossible was the need to do handoffs. Which isn't actually a reason, as the user link also needs to do handoffs, and these can coincide. With multiple satellites always visible to every user, they don't need continuous uptime on every satellite. Giving up 1 second or so of transmit time every minute in order to double the uplink throughput is a huge overall increase.
well, let's analyze it separatelyFirst of all, I asked you to reply to the people who had already pointed out the ways you are wrong. By replying to me instead and including arguments that were already shutdown, you are rudely ignoring both me and them which is simply uncivil behavior.
Each StarLink satellite changes its gateway at least once every 2...4 minutes 10 seconds (max time). In order to change the gateway, the Ka-band antenna on sat must turn back up to 130 degrees.
Have you ever seen how a SeaTel or Intellian marine antenna is tuned? How many time they need to turn? (in seconds?) Please "quickly" is not answer , Answer is X seconds..You have already been given numeric answers by other people. It should easily be less than the 15 second window that people have observed Starlink routing configurations to happen in. The antennas you linked are irrelevant. I know of satellites where the entire satellite could reorient at speeds that approach the needed speed here. For the relatively small dishes on Starlink, claiming they can't possibly move fast enough is a level of concern trolling equivalent to calling the SpaceX engineers idiots.
After prime pointing "in direction" , if it receives the signal from the beacon on GW begin precise pointing both (!!!) Antennas - on Sat and on GW. After that, as fine pointing is completed, the Antenna and link Sat-GW 2 is ready for operation with nesessary SNR, server on the gateway can send a message to the NMС that GW2 is ready to serve satellite X and the corresponding cells NN was served from Gateway 1, now it must be served by Gateway 2.As you have already been told by people who have demonstrated more comprehension of this subject than you, that long paragraph stating the interactions can be less than 1 second in practice.
At the same time, the NMS should redirect traffic for users from POP 1 to which GW1 is connected to POP2 to which GW2 is connected ..
And only after all these processes are implemented, the operating configuration of the full StarLink Network "Gateway - satellite- cell" for the next 15 seconds is created, service through the gateway 2 can begin. A temporary break for these processes is at least 15 seconds, and maybe more.
(I would personally take an additional 15 seconds as a margin of time so that if it is not possible to сonnect to GW2. will be time to switch to GW3)
That is why OneWEB Engineers (who created early O3B NGSO Network) have chosen the method described above to ensure the 100% continuity of the service.Again, One Web is a fundamentally different architecture in many ways including their overall business model. Stop bringing them up it is off topic and irrelevant.
If the Space X Engineer believed that it was permissible to interrupt the service for the user every 4 minutes for 15-30 seconds per, they would have been fired on the same day.Each satellite losing just half capacity for 15 seconds every 15 minutes would not interrupt any single user's service for even 10 ms. It would be handled just like any other handoff and another satellite could pick up the slack if needed.
And I am happy to read any SpaceX document that can confirm your words each Sat will be served from 2 GW in one moment.Burden of proof. You made the assertion that the satellites will waste nearly half of their capacity to handle a non-issue. You provide actual evidence for your claim, but first apologize to everyone who already gave you numbers that you decided to rudely ignore.
P.S. I have a question Have you ever worked in Telecom in the field of service quality? or Satellite Networks?I am not in a position where discussing my background is appropriate, it is also irrelevant, because providing it would only serve the purpose of making the argument from authority fallacy. Seeing as you have yet again failed to acknowledge the facts I provided about phased arrays and the consequences of those facts, which I provided a citation for, you have repeatedly cited non-authoritative and irrelevant sources, and in this post you have ignored numbers given to you by people including Nomadd, who I know from his past posts to have relevant practical experience, the conclusion I come to is that nothing you assert should be taken as valid without independent relevant confirmation. This is the result of your actions, my word too is only as good as the knowledge I have demonstrated. My posts are in agreement with the others here who have demonstrated knowledge of the subject, yours are not.
What service availability should StarLink provide in your opinion?
//Second, while I have not worked out the math for Starlink, LEO satellites can easily have 15-20 minute downlink windows, so 2-4 minutes should not be typical.
So can you calculate first? and then you will write nonsense about 15-20 minutes for StarLink?
//to calling the SpaceX engineers idiots.
This is a good point. So we have 2 options for organizing a feeder channel with a speed of 20 Gbps.
Option A Proven many times, as OneWeb engineers did. to use one feeder channel at a time from a single 1.5m antenna on the Gateway with a maximum throughput of 32 Gb and a typical 25+ Gbps
Option B, which, according to your words, was implemented by SpaceX engineers - use simultaneously 2 feeder lines and 2 Antennas on different gateways, each with a maximum capacity of 32 Gbps and a typical 25+ Gbps. In total, they transmit either 25 or 50 Gbps to the satellite, although 20 gbps are needed. At the same time, there is some kind of magic box on the satellite for redistributing traffic at the packet level on board (a task that no manufacturer in the world has solved so far for a serial satellite ). Naturally, this unique magic box increases the cost of the satellite, requires additional power, and reduces the reliability of the satellite. At the same time, no one knows about the magic box yet, and there is no mention in any SpaceX document, although its appearance would be a sensation and an achievement much greater than laser channels.
From my point of view, the Engineer who proposed option B instead of A can be called an idiot. But note that you called SpaceX engineers idiots, not me ..
from multiple aerial photos the starlink base stations have 9 domed steerable parabolic dishes in a 3x3 gridAlways 9, but sometimes in one or 2 rows
At the same time, there is some kind of magic box on the satellite for redistributing traffic at the packet level on board (a task that no manufacturer in the world has solved so far for a serial satellite ).The hardware necessary can be found in commodity network switch ASIC's - the chip parses enough of each packet header to form a flow identifier then uses that to pick the outbound link for a flow. Packets within a flow all go on the same outbound link and remain in order. Read up on link aggregation and equal-cost multipathing.
You are the one who made up a number based on nothing. I gave a number based on experience working LEO satellites. You can either choose to learn something about the subject and do the math yourself, or you can stop making baseless assertions.
//Second, while I have not worked out the math for Starlink, LEO satellites can easily have 15-20 minute downlink windows, so 2-4 minutes should not be typical.
So can you calculate first? and then you will write nonsense about 15-20 minutes for StarLink?
//to calling the SpaceX engineers idiots.And the rest of your analysis is all based on this 20 Gbps number which is an old number for Starlink throughput. As I have already mentioned, there is no reason to believe that this is still true for the latest Starlink satellites, especially since ISLs mean that not all data going to or from a ground station will be tied to user beams on the satellite.
This is a good point. So we have 2 options for organizing a feeder channel with a speed of 20 Gbps.
From my point of view, the Engineer who proposed option B instead of A can be called an idiot. But note that you called SpaceX engineers idiots, not me ..As the above posters have pointed out, you referred to common networking equipment which is the basis for the modern internet as magic in your description of option B. Being able to do onboard packet routing is trivially required for ISLs to be useful (see my reply to you in the Starlink Markets thread) Making such as claim goes beyond ignorance, and to then try to use that nonsense to claim I am calling the SpaceX engineers idiots is just hateful.
So can you calculate first? and then you will write nonsense about 15-20 minutes for StarLink?You are the one who made up a number based on nothing. I gave a number based on experience working LEO satellites. You can either choose to learn something about the subject and do the math yourself, or you can stop making baseless assertions.
Orbital Period for LEO satellites in 90 minutes as a rule of thumb. A precise number for Starlink is not something that someone would know without doing the calculation if they haven't been directly working with that data recently. (formula is in the SMAD textbook sitting on my desk, but I am not going to do the math for you for your claim.)So can you calculate first? and then you will write nonsense about 15-20 minutes for StarLink?You are the one who made up a number based on nothing. I gave a number based on experience working LEO satellites. You can either choose to learn something about the subject and do the math yourself, or you can stop making baseless assertions.
Oh, let's analyze this nonsense, so the 2 most banal questions:
1) What is the orbital period of the StarLink Satellite around the Earth?
2) What is the diameter of the circle in the sky that the gateway antenna sees?
Anyone with even the slightest interest in StarLink should know these numbers. Next 2 calculations at the elementary school level.
a great way to understand what is behind your words and what is your real experience in satellite communications :-), and is there any point in reading further everything that you write ..
[zubenelgenubi: Fixed quotes. Please proofread your reply posts before posting.]