NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX General Section => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 06/06/2019 08:02 pm

Title: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/06/2019 08:02 pm
For links to other Starlink discussion threads, launch threads, and FCC filings take a look at the Starlink Index Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48981.0)



Thread 1:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36552.0

Articles:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=Starlink

-

Please don't clutter this thread with arguments about the "impact" for astronomers, etc.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/07/2019 05:13 pm
Moved a couple posts to make a new thread in the Commercial Spaceflight section for discussing the impacts on astronomy stuff:
Impacts of Large Satellite Constellations on Astronomy (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48302.0)

Most discussion on the impacts of satellite constellations on astronomy should go to the new thread.  Anything in this thread should be Starlink specific (such as SpaceX announcing mitigation measures specific to their satellites).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/08/2019 08:02 pm
Do we have an estimate of when the 56 "good" sats will reach their "final" orbital positions? That plus a few months for tests and software tweaks would give us a a good estimate on when to expect the next launch of the V1.0 sats for which final design decisions to pick the best design options being tested by this current V0.9 smorgasbord designs for the best price performance design finalization. Although the next batch may be a reduced variation down design set it may not yet be the V1.0 "final".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 06/09/2019 03:03 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/09/2019 12:46 pm
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.

It will be very interesting to see if they request any more deviations from their license on the next set or not.  Based on what they've filed to date they should start launching with Ka-band capability on the next full launch.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/12/2019 03:49 am
Simulation showing the global coverage area of 6 and 12 orbital planes from early Starlink deployment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k73AFybi7zk
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/12/2019 03:52 am
Some tidbits from Tesla shareholder meeting:

https://twitter.com/jackiewattles/status/1138574349231886339
Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/1138574399890546688
Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: psionedge on 06/12/2019 07:34 am
So now the key market is people that could buy service from HNS and Viasat?

I thought the low-latency was the key to unlocking big money in HFT markets.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/12/2019 12:46 pm
So now the key market is people that could buy service from HNS and Viasat?

I thought the low-latency was the key to unlocking big money in HFT markets.
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.

Realize that HFT markets have dedicated point to point microwave links that for the most part can get even lower latency.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 06/12/2019 02:18 pm
Some tidbits from Tesla shareholder meeting:

https://twitter.com/jackiewattles/status/1138574349231886339
Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/1138574399890546688
Quote
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

Tesla could integrated the receiving antennas for Starlink to areas of the bodywork that isn't glass. Like the frunk lid, trunk lid, door panel, etc. on cars, SUVs & pickup trucks.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tulse on 06/12/2019 02:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Marine_Mustang on 06/12/2019 03:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tulse on 06/12/2019 03:24 pm
And real-time monitoring of cargo trucks will become vital once autonomous driving becomes more commonplace.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 06/12/2019 03:55 pm
While we're on this tangent, where Starlink really makes sense is for remote locations that need a solid data connections, like Superchargers. Not only do they need to be connected for billing, they are playing around with offering Wifi so the car can download updates and upload feedback while it charges.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/12/2019 11:28 pm
And real-time monitoring of cargo trucks will become vital once autonomous driving becomes more commonplace.
Already a thing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 06/13/2019 03:23 am
And real-time monitoring of cargo trucks will become vital once autonomous driving becomes more commonplace.
Already a thing.

Likely not at the scale, granularity, and fidelity necessary given the potential adoption magnitude and liabilities?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LiamS on 06/13/2019 01:14 pm
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:

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 06/13/2019 04:41 pm
>
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/13/2019 08:16 pm
>
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.
Even if they only achieve .3% in 10 years that is still $13B to$23B.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kragrathea on 06/14/2019 07:36 am
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:

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
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kragrathea on 06/14/2019 07:47 am
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 06/14/2019 08:07 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JamesH65 on 06/14/2019 10:25 am
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?

Why on earth would you think that the final installation will be on flatbeds? This is prototype stuff, if they get covered with snow, they just brush it off.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/14/2019 01:43 pm
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.

Those 1M Ku-band base stations are for individual users/businesses/households.  They are different from the Ka-band gateways that will be handling large amounts of traffic.  The current Ku-band gateways are supposed to be temporary.  (I'd bet there are quite a few people in Africa who can afford more than $1/month for internet service, and many installations will probably be shared in small towns.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 06/14/2019 04:45 pm
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...

One house = one family = one user terminal = 50 USD/month = average 550..570 USD/user per year (not forget about churn)
for 1 Mio user  is revenue 560..570 Mio USD per year  is good and real business !

Compare:  Hughes had in 2017 1,26 Mio users (total in USA,Canada, Mexico, Brazil etc)
minimal tariff plan 60 USD /mo ( max is 130 USD/mo ) and 1477 Mio USD total revenue in 2017 (consumer broadband + 200+ corporate networks + military + aviation broadband + hardware delivery to more then 100 Operator in all the world) ..
https://www.hughes.com/who-we-are/resources/press-releases/echostar-announces-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2017-results
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 06/14/2019 05:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kragrathea on 06/14/2019 08:12 pm
Sorry, I meant 100 users per in a situation like a base station with a cell tower attached like you would use in Africa.

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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/14/2019 08:18 pm
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.

No.  It is designed for one antenna per household.  The 1M number is just a random round number to get started with, they have to ask for something in the license application.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 06/14/2019 08:25 pm
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 ...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZChris13 on 06/14/2019 08:29 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 06/14/2019 08:50 pm
I think thats part of why Elon have said it isn't for urban areas.
I see 3 reasons:
1) In cities mostly houses had  fiber today. Why  user will change existing provider??
2) In cities  in next 2-3 years will be built 4G/5G coverage and all owners mobile pnones or  notebooks automaticallywill have access to high speed internet  without any additionally devices and new contract with new company.
3) last but not least Starlink needs  direct view on satellites with angle 25+ degrees .. constantly and 360 degrees around. In Mahnhattan this is inpossible...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 06/14/2019 08:52 pm
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 ...

By design, Starlink will not transmit if a GSO satellite is within 22 degrees (earth to satellite).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: groundbound on 06/14/2019 09:14 pm

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 06/14/2019 09:46 pm
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

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 06/14/2019 11:38 pm
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

I'll look where I found that number but the important point is there is an existing method for dealing with GSO satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 06/15/2019 08:43 am
My understanding is that these are two different matters. One is the max angle sats are operating in relation to ground stations. The other is that they will not use angles close to the beam direction of a GEO satellite using the same frequency to avoid interference.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gtae07 on 06/15/2019 09:48 am

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.
THIS.

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 (our only choice for internet service besides 4G through a cell carrier).  We have no competition here and thus we pay 3-4x what everyone else does for comparable service.  Even people living out in the sticks get better service than we do, and we're a fairly new subdivision in a growing suburb.  Up until about two years ago we were paying $70 for 5 megabit service. 

Heck, I'd drop a grand or two myself on the hardware and get my own terminal if I could. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: 2megs on 06/15/2019 12:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 06/15/2019 03:40 pm
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.

There’s a lot more to the story of Google Fiber’s failure regarding uptake. In my general area (Nashville), the market competitors lobbied very hard and very effectively to prevent Google from gaining access to the same pole and underground easements that they already held exclusive leases to. Consequently, Google could only penetrate those very few areas undergoing extensive in-fill redevelopment (e.g., the Gulch area near downtown, which was formerly industrial use and railyard-adjacent warehouse districts), and a few newer developments in the smaller remaining green spaces. After attempts to batter their way through the local B.S. (funded mostly by Comcast) they basically gave up.

However, in the suburban areas outside Metropolitan Davidson County area, AT&T took advantage of their pre-existing POTS easements to run fiber as built out their network. My neighborhood of a couple hundred houses was fiber’ed up over the course of a couple months. My house was the first in the neighborhood - and quite possibly my entire city - to get fiber-to-the premises over 3 years ago.

The takeaway from this being, absent well-funded and effective local and state-wide lobbying efforts by competitors to prevent uptake, new technologies can certainly take off at the right price.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gtae07 on 06/15/2019 05:58 pm
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. 

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". 


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 06/15/2019 06:31 pm
Google cable required a physical route, preferably via existing poles, easements etc, or new trenches, poles and permissions. SX needs none of that.

EM appeals to a lot of markets with Starlink. 1) inaccessible/poor access to existing connections. 2) Higher speed.... assumed to be at a a fair price. 3) Low latency. He was just on E3 talking with Todd Howard, enjoying the company of gamers. The plug for Starlink only came in reply to a question about latency. I think he said <30ms from anywhere in the world! and in a later layer of satellites <10ms NOTE*. He stated it was one of the design criteria, to make it effective for gaming. (As well as talking about how many exceptional programmers started on games.) And I add, as VR enters gaming, and remote working, low latency and bandwidth will be needed.

No there are too many fires being cultivated, all pushing for Starlink-like performance. It will not be ignored.

As for multiple users on one antenna. For blocks of apartments its bound to happen. For offices, schools, hospitals etc, there will be a higher bandwidth connection. etc. So I expect Starlink will offer a suitable product, that can be highly multi user. (Edit: Maybe not alert Comcast that he can hijack their urban subscribers)
*(Seems bonkers to me as I get light taking 66ms to travel 20,000Km, half way round the earth!)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ludus on 06/15/2019 07:19 pm
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. 

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".

This came out as a factor even in Elon’s original presentation of Starlink in Seattle where he was recruiting engineers and didn’t expect it to go public. There was cheering making a few words inaudible over the prospect of replacing the big telecom ISPs. The numbers have always meant urban markets would never be handled for large fractions of customers but Starlink could still be an alternative. The issues kind of balance out. Lot’s of people in cities don’t care enough to switch which is fine since the system can’t handle them anyway. There is capacity to give interested customers in cities an alternative. There are tens of millions of underserved people in rural areas as a base.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kragrathea on 06/15/2019 10:56 pm
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.   
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/16/2019 03:43 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 06/16/2019 04:06 am
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.
 The problem with it is the routing. It would be good with early sats that just bounce the signal to a ground station, but in the future, when the sats route through each other and they're trying to minimize lag, the conversations are going to be going every which direction. The sat routers are going to make one armed paperhangers look lazy.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 06/16/2019 05:13 am
Modern WiFi (802.11ac) uses beam forming, a type of phased array.  I'd expect starlink to do the same for the same reasons.

Higher antenna gain gives greater rejection of noise and requires less transmission power.  It would also allow you to reuse frequencies in cells smaller than 1,000,000 km^2.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kragrathea on 06/16/2019 05:46 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/16/2019 06:30 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kragrathea on 06/16/2019 07:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZChris13 on 06/16/2019 07:55 am
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.
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 context
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 06/16/2019 10:01 am
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.

Already Ku range bids excellent spacial separation of the sources and "theoretically" even complex modulations can be supported. Hence no need for WCDMA separation. But! Technical realization complexities are a bitch.
Math basis (MIMO communications) was done by the beginning of 2000 though.
there are no fundamental restrictions to support multiple users at the same time, more of it outside of cities (i.e. if direct links are available) the separation process is straightforward. ASICs thanks to the bitcoin craze grew up considerably so there are no restrictions there as well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jcc on 06/16/2019 04:21 pm
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.
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 context

Another relevant stat is the average number of end users per ground station. Especially for apartment buildings and condos it makes a lot of sense to do connection sharing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 06/17/2019 05:19 pm
I wonder, once the laser-equipped sats are launched, would it be possible to use one of the lasers to determine altitude?  Perhaps place retroreflectors on some of the ground stations?

It would be interesting I think if you are determined to have a large constellation with a minimum of babysitting. Another element would be using the routine communications between sats to track changes to their relative positions.

edit: I suppose you could measure altitude various ways from a ground station without retroreflectors.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 06/17/2019 07:43 pm
So now the key market is people that could buy service from HNS and Viasat?

I thought the low-latency was the key to unlocking big money in HFT markets.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 06/18/2019 12:41 am
So now the key market is people that could buy service from HNS and Viasat?

I thought the low-latency was the key to unlocking big money in HFT markets.
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.

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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: josephcouvillion on 06/18/2019 03:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 06/18/2019 03:17 pm
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.

Yup.
I have land 60 miles from boston. I have friends living near there and the cable company just stopped 1/4 mile short of their house. They are at least 2 miles to center of town for dsl. No cable. Cell phone coverage barely. Population 1300.

It will be interesting to see how starlink will allow people like this(60 miles) to hook up and prevent people in the near suburbs(10 miles) from hooking up and saturating the same satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 06/18/2019 03:26 pm
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.

I do fully expect there to be rain fade issues with Starlink, just as with existing satellite and cellular coverage. That said, I wouldn't mind being surprised. One mitigating factor might be often loss of signal with traditional satellite is due to one towering thundercloud passing between the ground dish and distant GSO transmitter -- the ability to switch between several different LEO satellites at all times might keep signal loss to a minimum during summer storm time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: russianhalo117 on 06/19/2019 04:34 am
So now the key market is people that could buy service from HNS and Viasat?

I thought the low-latency was the key to unlocking big money in HFT markets.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 06/19/2019 07:00 am
So now the key market is people that could buy service from HNS and Viasat?

I thought the low-latency was the key to unlocking big money in HFT markets.
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.

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.

A frequently cited example is the death of the LORAN navigation beacon network (though there is the occasional noises of eLORAN making a comeback for navigation system diversity in the face of loss/jamming of GPS)

There are other factors as well leading to the shutdown of long range relay microwave such as the former AT&T Long Lines network, though the usual reason is servicing the very remote relay towers in rural areas, compared to fiber optic systems that typically follow existing highways/railways/powerlines and are thus easier to reach and repair. Most of the HFT microwave usage is line of sight to an exchange from a datacenter (though allegedly there were some private HFT lines reusing former Long Lines sites), while the shortwave stuff is generally intercontinental/international distances.

AT&T Long Lines Network (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_transmission#Microwave_radio_relay)

Regaining the latency reduction of reduced relays via Starlink helps anything with realtime considerations, without the private upkeep costs of a Long Lines system, and for the shortwave operators, switching to Starlink avoids the variability of atmospheric conditions affecting your ionosphere bounce performance parameters.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/19/2019 03:27 pm
Neutrino thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48385.0)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 06/19/2019 10:28 pm
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.

Trucks, not so much. Personal experience.

Systems are genericly known as qualcomm’s for obvious reasons. First gen was sat only. Latency not an issue. Second gen cell w/sat fallback as an option. Latency not an issue. Loss of signal very rare these days. Latest systems do WiFi for the driver, cargo/reefer status log status and driver/collision cams. Latency only an issue for driver WiFi. Most companies could care less. Bandwidth maybe becoming an issue.

Ships could be a customer. Trains & busses if offering WiFi to passengers. Back in the 90’s I knew a guy on a microwave crew for th Santa Fe. They did a lot to keep operational info moving. Most track parallels major highways so cell should be available. Maybe a customer. Maybe not.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tulse on 06/20/2019 07:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 06/20/2019 11:37 pm
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.

There are a few autonomous truck startups that are sorta doing that now, with highway driving autonomous, and a remote safety driver used for highway exits/entries.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SWGlassPit on 06/21/2019 09:48 pm
TS Kelso (of CelesTrak) has some concerns about the tracking of the constellation:

https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1141906661499711491
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Warby12 on 06/22/2019 11:47 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/22/2019 01:15 pm
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?
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/22/2019 01:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/22/2019 03:10 pm
Can you possibly explain this for me?

When a bunch of objects get released into similar orbits it can be difficult for the organization that tracks them to reliably keep track of which is which until they separate a little and get into stable orbits.  Aside from being a lot of objects, the SpaceX satellites have (almost) all been constantly changing their orbits as they climb to their operational altitude which makes things even trickier. 

That tracking database (the public interface for it is space-track.org) is used to warn satellite operators when something is going to come close to their sat so they can take a look and determine if any action is needed.  If the data isn't up to date then the analysis of possible collisions won't be correct.  Kelso is advocating for SpaceX to set up a system like Planet uses, where they publicly share their data on the orbits of their satellites.  We don't really know what kind of sharing is going on between SpaceX and 18 SPCS (USAF 18th Space Control Squadron), there should be some data sharing going on there but it's odd that the SpaceX orbital data isn't getting updated regularly if that sharing is happening.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 06/22/2019 09:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: drzerg on 06/22/2019 09:30 pm
if spacex have comms with sats and they could determine their positions themselves via star tracker i think spacex knows exact TLE every turn or even more often 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/22/2019 09:37 pm
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.

It doesn't.  18 SPCS isn't running outside with binoculars to try and find them.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/22/2019 11:10 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 06/22/2019 11:20 pm
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?

This appears to be a wide open statement.

Could you place a little more perspective as to how you find this interesting. You have not given numbers for various employment functions to do a comparison as well as the labour intensity required for the various functions. The employee numbers stated are meaningless without context ( they could all be lobbyists for all I know).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 06/22/2019 11:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/23/2019 12:11 am
This is a visualization from Celestrak at
https://celestrak.com/cesium/orbit-viz.php?tle=/satcat/tle.php?INTDES=2019-029&satcat=/pub/satcat.txt&orbits=64&pixelSize=3&samplesPerPeriod=9

If you do look for the Starlink satellites and see some go by, would you know which of the 64 objects they are without already having accurate TLEs for them?  If you have fairly frequent observations you can probably make a good guess, and 18 SPCS should have fairly frequent observations, but if it takes manual analysis to sort everything out every day I wonder if 18 SPCS is really set up for dealing with that.  It's an unusual number of objects for them to have to deal with during orbit raising.  SpaceX has that information.  If they're sharing it with 18 SPCS, it might still take manual processing on the USAF side, which they might not be used to doing with great frequency.  These large launches might be a learning process for both sides.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 06/23/2019 12:42 am
Quite true.

At the same time, this is a visualization of TLE data using a specific platform (and there are a few), which is a nice GUI.

Some payloads also have GPS and we have many ground assets to determine positional (ephemeris)data as well.

All I am stating is that TLE's in the catalog at any moment are not the whole story, just a nice data set portrayed in compact fashion and this information can be refined much further, as is done by 18SPCS, when they have the time and updated in the catalog but, it may not be the latest due to internal priorities. This could even be a staffing problem due to budget.

In my opinion, the real issue is one of a regulatory nature. We can't expect to put an expensive tracking system on a student cubesat, but we could at least require something better on commercial payloads. At present, launch providers and payloads are conforming to the regulations in place.

It is going to be difficult to identify a close set of payloads unless methods are in place for future launches and it must be affordable.

I have not heard 18SPCS's side of the story on this matter but believe that they have this in hand as best as they can, for now.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/23/2019 01:59 am
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.

It doesn't.  18 SPCS isn't running outside with binoculars to try and find them.
My mistake. I know that they DO rely on amateur observations for classified satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 06/23/2019 08:20 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/23/2019 01:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/23/2019 03:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/23/2019 07:17 pm
NORAD has to track all of this already, don’t they? They have radar.

21st Space Wing
Quote
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).

18th Space Control Squadron
Quote
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.

edit: This recent article mentions the current state of affairs with the computer systems:
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/04/what-about-jms-air-force-reanimates-old-clunker-space-tracking-system/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 06/23/2019 08:14 pm
Just to help out....

Going beyond 18 SPCS, we have international involvement. Here is a very simplified brief...

https://swfound.org/media/205874/swf_ssa_fact_sheet.pdf (https://swfound.org/media/205874/swf_ssa_fact_sheet.pdf)

This does not include Space Fence which was due 4th Qtr of 2019 (may have shifted) as well as access to other agency assets such as missile defence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Fence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Fence)

There are many billions of dollars  worth of equipment in operation and available in the near future. 18 SPCS has multiple resources and will have enhanced real time mass tracking for use with present multiple collision filtering abilities.

I have not seen any requirements for TLE's to be updated in real time. The data that 18 SPCS has available will always be more accurate. They will communicate "issues" with the owner/operators directly. Unless someone would prefer a website that processes TLE data, that they were given. When one has 6 and 7 figure satellite/constellation assets...my money would be on the source.

Sorry about being blunt...this is why I lean towards SpaceX and 18 SPCS having a good handle on the situation.
 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 06/25/2019 08:45 am
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.
18SPCS is busy with the safety of space operations and they focus primarily on the objects which change orbits or operate on unusual (read highly eccentric) orbits. Their job is to provide reliable data in simple numeric format which can be used by interested parties to feed their guiding models and to avoid possible collisions.

Anyway let take the tweet seriously for a moment. According to it at least a couple of Starlink pizzas have reached stable orbit by 6 of June. I call it BS. (it should be ~12-14 of june). And all corresponding TLE dating I call questionable. More of it if you are not lazy you can easily find confirmation of that suspicion.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/25/2019 12:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 06/25/2019 04:18 pm
is this subtopic interesting enough to merit a carve-out?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 06/25/2019 11:34 pm
is this subtopic interesting enough to merit a carve-out?

Traffic monitoring and control is going to be an increasing concern in the age of megaconstellations, to prevent Kessler syndrome if nothing else. Perhaps a new orbit ops subforum perhaps, to merge all the megaconstellation threads with the spacecraft ops/astrogation threads?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/27/2019 05:04 pm
TS Kelso (of CelesTrak) has some concerns about the tracking of the constellation:

https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1141906661499711491

Current status, situation is much improved now, only 4 Starlink satellites have TLE older than 5 days.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 06/27/2019 06:08 pm
Good to know that somebody is on it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/27/2019 07:48 pm
Your tired meme doesn't really apply in this case.  The process is not all internal to SpaceX.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 06/27/2019 10:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: NewSpaceIsFun on 06/28/2019 12:21 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 06/28/2019 07:36 am
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.
21st Operations Group does the tracking. 18SPCS does cataloging.
Direct quote:
Quote
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.

To return to the TLE. 18SPCS issue regularly updates. The data sets are good as long they are not changed.
If Starlink latest TLE is tagged by 20 days (erroneously as it's easy to check) it is still as good as 1 day old.
They request operators to submit in time forms with orbit changes etc. and on their side they provide collision avoidance services etc.
their site is https://www.space-track.org.

P.S. Indeed it would be nice if the NSF guys would make an article about what 18SPCS do and why their job is critically important (they provide and cure orbital data for the satellite operators).
But there is no such article so far, and the satellite data were used to attack SpaceX. Amazingly by the owner of CelesTrak who is supposed to "know better".
As long it is primarily SpaceX related the discussion place is here I believe.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/29/2019 02:30 am
Sounds like there's some fighting over whether Starlink has “first to operate” status: https://www.geekwire.com/2019/spacex-reports-milestone-starlink-satellite-links-sparks-debate/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/29/2019 02:43 am
OneWeb was always in the "I'm gonna take my spectrum and go home!" camp. No shed tears for them. But Telesat deserves to be given a fair shot.


...these being only moral statements, not legal ones. :)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/29/2019 02:49 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/29/2019 12:56 pm
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.

OneWeb also seemed to want to establish “altitude rights” ostensibly for orbital debris safety, but also having the further benefit of gaining a monopoly near that altitude, another kind of valuable first-come-, first-serve property right that could in principle be worth a lot of money (like GPS slots).

Anyway, I think a lot of this is about bargaining position. The FCC wants to award spectrum to folks who will actually use it, not squatters, and SpaceX is appealing to that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/29/2019 01:44 pm
I'm sure the FCC wants to make spectrum available to a US company too, and SpaceX is the only one in the game.  I've wondered if that is part of some of the quick approvals SpaceX has gotten.

This "first to operate" thing doesn't seem to be about the amount of spectrum they get in the sharing situations, but who gets to pick which part of the available spectrum they'll use.  I suppose that could allow you to make quicker connections if you're not having to check a couple frequencies to see which is in use?  The splitting shouldn't be random, I'd hope they arrange in advance which frequencies each system will use in those situations.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 06/29/2019 03:29 pm
Just my opinion, but frequency allocation within the Ku band will be very important down the road with respect to interference. This has been covered in depth within the FCC filings and interference will not be tolerated. If one gets to choose prime regions of the spectrum, there will be less chance of being asked to modify or curtail use later on when issues with adjacent operators occur.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: billh on 07/02/2019 06:20 pm
Quote
"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."

https://spacenews.com/starlink-failures-highlight-space-sustainability-concerns/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 07/03/2019 12:25 am
Has the nature of the 3 "bad" sats been expanded upon? SpaceX claims initial contact, but it isn't clear if that meant afterwards power loss caused them to go silent (solar or battery failure), electric thruster failure preventing active deorbit but otherwise they are operating (they mention passive disposal), or partial solar failure preventing accumulation of enough power to operate the electric thruster?

The partial power case might show up as odd slight orbit changes downward every once in a while as the thrusters can't be operated on a full duty cycle.

Has anyone recently imaged the 3 sats? If they are still optically flaring that would suggest at least the solar panel deployed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 07/03/2019 12:52 am
From the StarLink media call tweeted by a CNBC correspondent

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1128787853310402561

Quote
@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."

Perhaps the 3 failed satellites were using an alternate array deployment mechanism which failed. After the batteries discharged, bye-bye.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cuddihy on 07/03/2019 07:02 am
-first I've seen rounding out the discussion of 2 different types of deployment mechanisms for solar arrays

-interesting point by Matt Desch on how the reliability exceeding 2-3 times expected lifetime perversely creates a "sudden failure" on orbit, maybe years after expected lifetime, that results in a satellite being unable to deorbit or safed when it finally fails. This is an interesting point. So in this case, while commercially huge for the satellites to last longer than expected, it may be contributing to a space debris problem.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/03/2019 02:28 pm
Thread trimmed. If you want to discuss the quality level of another site, go on that site's comment section. The thread is about Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 07/05/2019 03:12 pm
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/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Comga on 07/05/2019 04:22 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 07/05/2019 07:12 pm
<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?

Not bromance. It is more like the enemy of of my enemy is my friend.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 07/08/2019 02:59 am
Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 07/08/2019 03:37 am
Quote
Quote
PUBLIC 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 or SDA demo?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 07/08/2019 03:41 am
Quote
Quote
PUBLIC 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?

I'm assuming it was for the last launch since it was approved before then.  Electro optical is a digital camera.  I think it's mostly for observing the satellite itself, with Earth possibly in the background.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 07/08/2019 05:33 am
IIRC, isn't the above just fallout from two years ago when NOAA suddenly noticed that the Go-Pros that SpaceX was using to observe its own rockets could also see the ground under them, so therefore a special license was needed.

I think it was specifically the cameras set to show off Starman in his Tesla, and they even had to cut off views from the second stage of the next launch while they worked out licensing details.

Edit to add: what I am getting at is that I imagine they just go ahead and get the license on any camera that can possibly see the Earth, even if that's not its primary function.

Or what gongora said....
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TRex on 07/08/2019 07:23 am
Electro Optic Systems Canberra Australia make lasers for detecting space junk
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Norm38 on 07/08/2019 04:09 pm
Where did the V0.9 / V1.0 verbage come from that's on the Manifest page?  Is that NSF internal, or something Musk said?  Just curious.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 07/08/2019 09:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 07/08/2019 11:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: 2megs on 07/09/2019 01:54 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/09/2019 02:05 am
Three rules for building a megaconstellation (https://spacenews.com/three-rules-for-building-a-megaconstellation/)

Quote
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.”

Quote
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.

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 07/09/2019 03:32 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 07/09/2019 03:58 am
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.

Right.  I was trying to quantify soon.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 07/09/2019 09:07 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.
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 07/09/2019 09:29 pm
the V 1.0 ( versus V 0.9)  labeling is also via Musk, IIRC.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 07/09/2019 10:26 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.

It's virtually impossible to have a ground station over every sat;   The oceans are vast.   I do expect there will be many ground stations, for performance, capacity, and political reasons.

It's possible to cache near the ends of the network, but I doubt this will be a feature of the early versions of Starlink.   

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tomness on 07/11/2019 03:42 pm
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.

Moved from specific mission thread
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 07/11/2019 05:41 pm
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.

Fair enough.  You know I always defer to your expertise with back-of-the-napkin (or better) figures.  :)   

I suppose (and I should probably refrain from this) I wish to rebut the original concern (quote: "I don’t see how SpaceX can insert the required 10 or so satellites").  My point is that replacing 10 sats is a non-issue.  As such my point doesn't assume radical plane changes are not possible.  It just holds that as an independent optimization exercise.

The question of whether or not SpaceX might launch 60 (or in a stretched fairing 90) sats (v0.9 or uprated in some way) to fill gaps and be capable of the plane changes needed to effectively distribute those where they are needed is an interesting question.  But I hold that the launch costs don't require it necessarily be solved.

Moved from Mission Specific thread
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/12/2019 02:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 07/16/2019 08:16 pm
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.

And Griffin was also one of the ~20 or so persons hired by Elon Musk (on consulting arrangements) before he started SpaceX to advise him on that prospect.  They formed a sort of "kitchen cabinet" that met approximately weekly in Silicon Valley to investigate and research various issues and matters related to pottentially forming a private rocket company.  Then, they would each go off and work on assignments for the next week. 

At the end of the time of a few months doing this, Musk went around the table and asked each one, individually, should I form a rocket company.  I've heard from two of the 20 personally that all but one of the ~20 members said "no", and only one said a qualified yes.  Elon obviously took that info in; then chose to create Space Exploration Technologies in 2002. 

The rest is history.

Griffin was one of those who said no.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/06/2019 08:59 pm
[I don't remember seeing this posted.  NSF is still working on coordination with OneWeb, Kepler, etc.]

Statement on NSF and SpaceX Radio Spectrum Coordination Agreement (https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=298678)

June 4, 2019

In late May, SpaceX launched its first 60 Starlink satellites into orbit. SpaceX plans to launch a much larger satellite constellation into low-Earth orbit with the goal of providing terrestrial internet service. The operation of these satellites will utilize frequencies that neighbor some radio astronomy assets in the 10.6 - 10.7 GHz band. SpaceX coordinated with NSF and its radio astronomy observatories regarding potential interference from their use of the radio spectrum. After working closely with SpaceX, NSF has finalized a coordination agreement to ensure the company’s Starlink satellite network plans will meet international radio astronomy protection standards, limiting interference in this radio astronomy band. Additionally, NSF and SpaceX will continue to explore methods to further protect radio astronomy. Together we are setting the stage for a successful partnership between commercial and public endeavors that allows important science research to flourish alongside satellite communication.

-NSF-
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/07/2019 03:24 am
1460-EX-ST-2019 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=94143&RequestTimeout=1000)
Ka-band ground station testing in McGregor, that's a good sign.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 08/07/2019 07:07 pm
Yup, DoD is happy with StarLink.

Quote
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.

Eric Berger ✔ @SciGuySpace
This comment about SpaceX and Starlink is remarkable due to A) the location in Huntsville, AL; and B) by an AF General, Terrence O'Shaughnessy:

"Completely changed our ability" to sense threats. "Holy smokes. Talk about being able to move the ball."
|
Top general says SpaceX may have just changed space defense

The general in charge of defending America from attacks from space says SpaceX's launch of 60 satellites with one rocket is a major breakthrough.

Link... (https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2019/08/top-general-says-spacex-may-have-just-changed-space-defense.html?outputType=amp)

|
Eric Berger ✔ @SciGuySpace
More: O'Shaughnessy, who commands America’s homeland defense including the NORAD warning system in Colorado, made the "holy smokes" remark responding to a question about promising new technologies asked at the annual Space & Missile Symposium in Huntsville.
|
Homer Hickam @realhomerhickam
Replying to @SciGuySpace
There is no lack of supporters of @SpaceX here in Huntsville. I don't know of any detractors. The young people working on SLS are just doing their jobs as it has been given to them to do but that doesn't keep them from applauding the marvelous advances of @elonmusk & crew.
|
Eric Berger ✔ @SciGuySpace
I take your point. Even so, the Space and Missile Symposium in Northern Alabama is hardly where I'd expect a SpaceX love fest to break out.
|
Matt Haskell @mhaskellphoto
Replying to @SciGuySpace and 3 others
Granted, but at the same time they really can't deny that at this point SpaceX has totally changed the game for them. In the words of Bob Dylan, The times they are a changin!
|
Homer Hickam @realhomerhickam
It has! But like any giant ship, especially one captained by people in DC, it takes awhile for that change to be recognized. Actually, Houston has a lot more to fear in terms of a change in business as usual because of what commercial space is doing than Huntsville
|

Twitter thread
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1159110525348974592
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 08/09/2019 07:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/09/2019 07:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 08/09/2019 07:39 pm
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.
I suspect they'll keep it close until ready... thanks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 08/09/2019 10:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/09/2019 10:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Keldor on 08/09/2019 11:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 08/09/2019 11:13 pm
Does anybody know if the next satellites will have black anodized frames to reduce reflected sunlight? Or some other variation like black paint.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 08/09/2019 11:31 pm
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.
Right, but you can't add the links only after there are many satellites up there...

The number of satellites with ISL will by necessity start out at zero.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 08/10/2019 12:18 am
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.

Satellites without ISL's take more satellites and ground infrastructure just to be visible because they limited to earth-satellite-earth line of sight. 
I haven't figured out the minimum satellites but it would be based on the visibility to the 5 ground stations. 

If they have ISL's they can relay from satellite to satellite until reaching a ground station. 

At 550 km it takes 11 per plane for 1 to be visible from the ground, Spacex has decide to do the U.S. first so that is 6 planes. 

The theoretical minimum satellites would be 11*6=60.  Not production, no spares or redundancy. 
Adding by 11 per plane with extras as spares adds redundancy and parallel routes. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 08/10/2019 12:49 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/10/2019 11:26 pm
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.


I expect they are still working out a lot on the protocols and sundry, and are spoofing ISL via ground stations. Can’t do much with timing but a lot can be played with. That and staking out marketing territory and showing progress towards meeting final licensing requirements. Probably none of the current and soon to come items are really expected to be part of the first live on line revenue generating constellation.


Since when did SX version numbers line up in any consistent way?


Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/10/2019 11:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 08/11/2019 10:17 pm
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.

I remember it differently. I thought Shotwell said the test satellites that are currently in orbit dont have ISL but that the production version does have it. We will see with the next two launches which version is real.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/11/2019 10:52 pm
Here is an item that will be a significant milestone and that is probably by the EOY 2019 SpaceX will have significantly more than 100 operational sats on orbit. This will be the largest constellation and will continue to set size records almost monthly.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/12/2019 01:49 am
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)_/Ż
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 08/12/2019 02:43 am
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)_/Ż
You do answer this question a lot... it probably be a relief when you can say something else...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/12/2019 05:07 am
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)_/Ż
You 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 08/12/2019 05:42 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/12/2019 01:23 pm
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.

My guess is they haven't gotten the price and performance to their liking yet.  They've had a lot of technologies to work on for these sats.  The major components seem to be designed and built in-house.  Optical inter-satellite links are not a common technology yet and I doubt the market price would be palatable for SpaceX.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 08/12/2019 03:24 pm
 Globalstar had one advantage over Iridium. They had higher quality audio because they didn't cram it into a 2400 bps channel. But Iridium had one huge advantage, and that was the ISLs. Without them you lose a lot of the globe, you lose the time and distance advantages and you have to have many more ground stations.
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 08/12/2019 03:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 08/12/2019 03:55 pm
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.
 Not having any real antenna specs on either end, it's hard to know how much margin they're putting in.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 08/12/2019 04:00 pm
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.
 Not having any real antenna specs on either end, it's hard to know how much margin they're putting in.

And obviously, to a degree, sometimes you don't care about performance.
If you are doing this for residual capacity over very sparsely populated areas, the fact you can't cope with the same number of customers may be an utter non-issue.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/12/2019 04:02 pm
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 08/12/2019 04:48 pm
Quote
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.
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cuddihy on 08/13/2019 03:07 pm

 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.

By the same token that proves this is a fairly *solved* problem. If a modern maritime 1-2M dish tracking a fixed GSO sat can handle 15 degree pitch & rolls from weather, a satellite moving with a much slower angular rate across the sky is not hard.

Smartphone-level GPS /IMUs take care of terminal orientation & location. Ephemeris & software calculate blockage after 5-7 satellites have  linked / blocked at different locations. You can build an angular access "map" for the terminal quickly from known ephemeris.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 08/14/2019 04:16 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/14/2019 04:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: intelati on 08/14/2019 04:31 pm
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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 08/14/2019 04:36 pm
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.
Looking for the Musk quote...  Never mind

Isn't Starlink a good thing to use to validate the new fairing?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/14/2019 04:44 pm
It depends on the details of the large fairing (and the guy on Twitter retracted his statement from yesterday).  If it's an outsourced fairing that is expensive and maybe not amenable to SpaceX's normal processing flow then I don't think it would make any sense for Starlink.  If SpaceX is serious about moving to StarShip then a large fairing might only be to support their Air Force business.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Unrulycow on 08/14/2019 04:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 08/14/2019 04:59 pm
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.

Yes. And in the NSSL context Falcon Heavy is the only vehicle that would ever launch the larger, RUAG-supplied fairing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kragrathea on 08/17/2019 03:21 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 08/19/2019 02:18 pm
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 went to the map link but I wasn't able to tell which direction to look for the clearing you speak of
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/19/2019 02:33 pm
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.

Is the whole lot being cleared or a portion?

Thank you for passing this information along.  SpaceX is building a nice-sized campus on that block.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 08/19/2019 05:06 pm
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 went to the map link but I wasn't able to tell which direction to look for the clearing you speak of

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 08/20/2019 05:24 am
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 went to the map link but I wasn't able to tell which direction to look for the clearing you speak of

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kragrathea on 08/20/2019 08:42 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DaveGee66 on 08/20/2019 02:48 pm
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 went to the map link but I wasn't able to tell which direction to look for the clearing you speak of

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. :(
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aero on 08/20/2019 03:58 pm
Quote
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.

Well, it's pretty obvious that we'll just have to wait until the Starlink constellation is operating, then (if Musk adds cameras) we can look for the site in real-time!

And by the way, have we anywhere focused on the benefits that camera bearing Starlink satellites could enable? I know that we've hit on some of them in passing but  I don't believe I've seen worldwide, real-time Earth observations mentioned anywhere. Of course, law enforcement comes high on the list of beneficiaries. Imagine having an aerial overview of the disaster scene at the same time as units are being dispatched to that scene. And how about search and rescue? Hiker's emergency kits could contain a sign (here I am) or the material to make the sign to mark their location when they get lost. (Or a cell phone!)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/20/2019 04:14 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/20/2019 05:48 pm
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.

Sounds reasonable.  Judging from LinkedIn, it appears that SpaceX is once again growing Seattle headcount.

I also think SpaceX has part of 22908 NE Adler Crest Dr.  Or at least, at one time they did.  King County no longer has permitting activity online, so it is a little more difficult to tell what is happening.  King County does provide information to the public upon request, but I have not submitted one.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aero on 08/21/2019 01:04 am
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?"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/21/2019 01:08 am
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?"

That might be a good topic for a new thread.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kragrathea on 08/21/2019 03:14 am
Here are a few drone shots of the SpaceX offices in Redmond with the new construction visible.

And the public notice for the new construction.

And a drone shot of the ground station in North Bend WA.

And for comparison, a shot of the Conrad MT ground station I took in May.

Quite a collection. 

Edit: Based on the permit number I found the construction companies page on the project. No mention of the client that I can see.
http://www.sierraind.com/new-project-redmond-ridge-113/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RDMM2081 on 08/22/2019 12:21 am
What is the current consensustimate (made up words sorry) for the production rate of Starlink satellites?

Given that 60 satellites launched on May 23 (89 days ago), but really, they were all at launch site and encapsulated some time before that.  This should be somewhere around 100 days since the last production batch.  Even if they are only averaging 1 satellite every 2 days, they should be very close to another full batch of 60 by now.

Falcon 9 manifest thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.0) estimates that the launch date for the v1 satellites to be mid-October, but the second launch of v1 only two weeks after that, November 4th.  This would be approximately 165 days since the first launch and assuming they keep the number of satellites per launch the same, 120 satellites in 165 days is getting very close to 1 per day.  I would guess that by early November the satellites should be coming off the line at least one per day.

That seems pretty cool to me but I'm mostly just guessing, anyone have any better thoughts or info?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/22/2019 12:37 am
I would guess their peak rate is already at least one per day, but they probably haven't been running continuously as they started manufacturing the full production design (with Ka-band) and addressed failures from the set of test sats.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aero on 08/22/2019 12:41 am
How many satellites do they need and how many days do they have to get them on orbit, divide.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 08/22/2019 12:56 am
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aero on 08/22/2019 01:17 am
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...

Of course, SpaceX isn't timid when asking for more hours from the labor force. There are 128 hours more hours in a week than just the 40 hour workweek.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/22/2019 04:32 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/22/2019 03:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 08/22/2019 04:45 pm
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.
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.   
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 08/22/2019 11:54 pm
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.

Looking at OneWeb's manufacturing line, it isn't that heavily automated, but has some automation due to the quantities involved. Even at Starlink's pace, you don't need Tesla levels of automation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kragrathea on 08/24/2019 09:42 pm
From twitter:

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1164206179935019008

Quote
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)


I guess they are just upgrading the one in Conrad with Ka band.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/24/2019 09:47 pm
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.

Attached the description document to the post in the other thread.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 08/29/2019 01:32 am
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:
Quote
SpaceX'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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: PM3 on 08/29/2019 01:46 am
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:
Quote
SpaceX'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.

9 Starlink launches with rideshare opportunites next year, starting in April. There may be more launches before, but not with the technical capability for rideshare.

How to mount 3rd party satellites on a Starlink stack?  ??? Or are we already talking about Starship here?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/29/2019 01:51 am
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/29/2019 06:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Confusador on 08/29/2019 12:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/29/2019 02:32 pm
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.

To clarified. The SpaceX rideshare proposal appears to be tailored for smallsats which definitely require a ESPA connector.

My take on a Starlink spacecraft cubesat dispenser variant is that you could simply stacked one with any Starlink launch with the other flatpack spacecrafts. Which give SpaceX a lot more launch slots for anyone with a cubesat looking for a ride in addition to the dedicated rideshare flights.

Also the Starlink spacecraft is big enough to mounted almost any cubesat deployer from customers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: groknull on 08/29/2019 04:55 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Confusador on 08/29/2019 05:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/30/2019 03:23 am
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.

SX is nothing but practical. If they could generate enough revenue with small sats to put a dent in launch costs they might be willing to cut the stack of star links to 50 and build enough of an adapter that the star links wouldn’t be setting directly on the paying customer.

The one launch they’ve done inserted 60 with 2 DOA. they need 66 per orbit so they must have a plan to do some roundout launches - probably with some crafty scheme using precession or something to allow one launch to service multiple orbits with minimum dV.

If their book keepers are as sharp as their engineers they probably already know what revenue the need to make an 8, 10, 12 or 14 sat cut worthwhile.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/02/2019 03:07 pm
twitter.com/esaoperations/status/1168533241873260544

Quote
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

https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/1168534065118679042

Quote
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

twitter.com/esaoperations/status/1168534747724820482

Quote
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

https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/1168535780056346624

Quote
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

twitter.com/esaoperations/status/1168536038601572353

Quote
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

https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/1168537063316185088

Quote
In 2018, ESA performed 28 #collisionavoidance manoeuvres across its fleet. See for example a 2018 manoeuvre by @ESA_Cryosat: twitter.com/esaoperations/…

twitter.com/esaoperations/status/1168539125634482176

Quote
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

https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/1168539686819770368

Quote
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: soltasto on 09/02/2019 03:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/02/2019 04:51 pm
https://twitter.com/launchstuff/status/1168556819352051714

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 09/02/2019 06:03 pm
Quote from: Matt Desch
Hmmm.  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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 09/02/2019 06:27 pm
Quote from: Matt Desch
Hmmm.  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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/02/2019 06:54 pm
Quote from: Matt Desch
Hmmm.  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.

NASA MO.

Do a press release every time you finish a weld on Orion or SLS or move an engine in- or out a teststand. Or move a satellite to prevent it from colliding with another one.

The whole reason this happens with ESA and NASA is because both organizations only exist due to taxpayer's money. Both organizations have an obligation to show their (sometimes involuntary) financial donors what their money is being spent on.

Private companies don't have such obligations. Matt doesn't quite understand that (yet).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 09/02/2019 08:14 pm
indeed NASA reports everything around SLS.
To complete an analogy it would be noice to show how ESA reports all collision avoidances.
The true is they have reported this "event" because it is the first time they have to deal with SpaceX. They do not report such avoidance maneuvers generally.
What is even more true this tweet "storm" is a typical advertisement program to raise money for  their pet project in UK.
Here is the key pitch:
http://blogs.esa.int/space19plus/programmes/space-debris/

they need a scare crow to get financing.

 ::)
I am afraid they have chosen the wrong target.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 09/02/2019 08:15 pm
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

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 09/02/2019 09:37 pm
It appears my last post got deleted for triggering someone...

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..

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 09/02/2019 10:27 pm
It appears my last post got deleted for triggering someone...

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..

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...)

If the probability was 1:1,000,000,000 I would not blame SpaceX for "refusing to move first"...
If the probability was 1:10 I would...

Numbers matter.

Also you gotta love @iridiumBoss ... that was world class.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 09/02/2019 10:35 pm
There are two threads with this same discussion... the other has more

This is cross posting my comment:
AIUI Starlink sats do not have thrusters that can make a significant orbit alteration in a short period. Any collision protection has to be calculated well in advance and takes time. This article confirms that Starlink uses only Hall thrusters: https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/05/15/spacex-releases-new-details-on-starlink-satellite-design/ Hall thrusters deliver perhaps 3 Newtons.

Also perhaps SpaceX were quite confident that a collision was impossible of of vastly lower odds than the ESA calculated.

Therefore we have one reason why it would be slow and not effective for SX to make an orbital change, and another reason why SX was confident there was no need. This puts a different slant on not moveing, from "No, you move", to "there is no need, we are well aware of the situation, and we can only make a minor change at this point, however if you feel strongly you ,ake the change"!

This is a quote and limk to the other thread:
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 09/02/2019 11:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 09/02/2019 11:54 pm
// reference...comment about the existence of the other thread...

Yes and thank you, but I believe most of us are aware of the other thread.

This is the general thread.

 Some of us probably have an opinion and will keep somewhat silent for a stretch,letting others trash around in the other thread for several pages and will see where it leads.

Eventually SpaceX may give their position (pun intended) on the matter....probably when things appear to get a bit overblown.

// edit...having an issue with quotes, probably just me...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 09/03/2019 12:03 am
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 09/03/2019 02:46 am
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
Something doesn't add up.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 09/03/2019 03:01 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 09/03/2019 03:11 am
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.

Seems to be a far better article than the one from CNET that proclaimed that "ESA Narrowly Avoids Starlink Collision" or some such.

In other news, CNET is now banned from my newsfeed (overdue, I know).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mlindner on 09/03/2019 08:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/03/2019 10:36 am
Here’s ESA’s latest:

twitter.com/astro_jonny/status/1168825704915656704

Quote
I'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/1168825707209928705

Quote
"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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Maciej Olesinski on 09/03/2019 11:52 am
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.

I am from Europe and I am ashamed of ESA.

“The greatest enemy is one that has nothing to lose.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: marsbase on 09/03/2019 12:00 pm
Regardless of probabilities, the ESA clearly did not avoid a collision with a "constellation" but rather only one satellite at most.  That shows the political nature of the ESA complaint.  SpaceX has taken the commercial launch market.  Ariane is non-competitive except for government payloads, which don't pay the bills.  Soon the ESA will be using Starlink internet to do their tweeting.  That is the real problem.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/03/2019 12:05 pm
Here’s ESA’s latest:

twitter.com/astro_jonny/status/1168825704915656704

Quote
I'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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/03/2019 01:05 pm
Here’s ESA’s latest:

twitter.com/astro_jonny/status/1168825704915656704

Quote
I'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:

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/03/2019 01:09 pm
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
Something doesn't add up.

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?

Per the SpaceNews article, the SOCRATES data predicted a 4 km miss but ESA had data (both internal and from USSTRATCOM) that indicated a much closer pass.

https://spacenews.com/esa-spacecraft-dodges-potential-collision-with-starlink-satellite/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 09/03/2019 01:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/03/2019 01:51 pm
Here’s ESA’s latest:

twitter.com/astro_jonny/status/1168825704915656704

Quote
I'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:

Yeah, but previous discussion never reached a conclusion as to whether 18SPCS is holding back more up to date dataset. And the TLE age issue has been resolved since then, if you check Starlink and Aeolus' TLE age on http://celestrak.com, they are both less than one day old, so very much up to date.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/03/2019 02:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 09/03/2019 02:06 pm
Well, even if the best data ESA had exceeded their threshold for avoidance, why didn't they just...  avoid?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/03/2019 02:10 pm
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?

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/03/2019 02:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cebri on 09/03/2019 02:18 pm
I think SpaceX will not make any further comments, as I don't believe they want a public fight with an international agency and keep this event more time in the news.

However, if the current databases are not accurate enough to eliminate the uncertainty of a collision, I do wonder what advancements can be made in that camp. Maybe sat constellations operators should be forced to share in real time the position of each of their satelites, including altitude, trayectory and velocity.

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.

I think he means why didn't just avoid and shut up about it. Until we know what spacex told them, it is very hard to know what went on.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/03/2019 02:22 pm
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?

Quote
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tywin on 09/03/2019 02:47 pm
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?

Quote
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.

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.

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?

By the way for general regulations and future resolutions, we have this thread  :)

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48954.msg1988270#new

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mn on 09/03/2019 03:00 pm

...

Who is ATC?
...


That would most likely be Air Traffic Control
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SWGlassPit on 09/03/2019 03:04 pm

...

Who is ATC?
...


That would most likely be Air Traffic Control

I think the question was more to the point of, "who would be given the authority to act as ATC?"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 09/03/2019 03:18 pm
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 first they demanded that SpaceX move,  then insinuated that somehow SpaceX should have moved but refused.

Somewhere in the middle, they moved as they should have.

Not the same.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Alastor on 09/03/2019 03:24 pm
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.

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).
They however say that it's an issue that there is no regulator nor regulation to handle this kind of situation that they envision becoming extremely frequent in the future.

And frankly, I think they are right about this. The different actors need to establish if not an international authority, at least international rules on the topic of collision avoidance : Who should avoid ? Based on what safety criterium ? Based on whose data ? And what maneuver should be done ?

An interesting point I have seen raised, that's of particular concern if we are talking about automatic avoidance systems is what happens if both satellite decide they should avoid and decide to do so in a way that keeps them on a collision course ? Does that mean that both satellites need to communicate to do such things ? If so, then it means we need communications standards for this as well and that we need to decide what happens if there is a conjunction between a satellite that's automatically avoiding and one that's exclusively ground controlled.

Basically, the point the ESA is making is that we need to have a system similar to ATC, but with an additional complexity factor which is that orbital mechanics forbid having a national authority for that. And we should probably do that before there is a colision caused by this lack of regulations.

They should have been clearer about their point from the get go, though.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Alastor on 09/03/2019 03:32 pm
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 first they demanded that SpaceX move,  then insinuated that somehow SpaceX should have moved but refused.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 09/03/2019 03:35 pm
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 first they demanded that SpaceX move,  then insinuated that somehow SpaceX should have moved but refused.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/03/2019 03:40 pm
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).

That may be what the forbes article wants you to believe by using words like "refused"/"declined" - which BTW the SpaceNews article didn't use - but if you read the article (and the SpaceNews article) carefully, there's no indication at all that ESA has asked SpaceX to move Starlink. All it says is:
Quote
“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

SpaceNews has similar wording
Quote
“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.”

No where in the article said SpaceX was asked to move.

Edit: And the author of the forbes article just clarified this:

https://twitter.com/Astro_Jonny/status/1168859502067834881

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 09/03/2019 03:53 pm
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 first they demanded that SpaceX move,  then insinuated that somehow SpaceX should have moved but refused.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tywin on 09/03/2019 03:57 pm
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 first they demanded that SpaceX move,  then insinuated that somehow SpaceX should have moved but refused.

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?

That rule is logical rule...even in automovil transport when you are in a bridge of only one way, and you with a motorcycle want to pass and a truck too...well normally the bigger vehicles have priority...

But anyway that is because is so important regulate all this...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Alastor on 09/03/2019 04:06 pm
There's no such rule.  Where did this information come from?

Did you even read me ?
I even specifically said there was no regulation on this in my previous post.
All I'm saying is you are making a fuss as if ESA was necessarily the ones who should move since they were worried about a collision. It's not that clear that they should be the ones to do so.

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.

BMW's don't cost 300M$.
Cars can make a stop at a fuel station if they run out of fuel and don't have to be thrown away.
Your comparison absolutely does not hold. It's these specificities that make this argument hold.

What I'm reading from the info I have seen is that they made this a public and political issue precisely because when they first tried to start a dialogue about that kind of things with SpaceX, they simply got ignored.
It's not ideal, but maybe they felt they didn't really have a choice if they wanted the issue to be addressed.

Also you are way overreacting. It's not a war if we don't make it a war.

No where in the article said SpaceX was asked to move.
Edit: And the author of the forbes article just clarified this

Good point.
Though they clearly implied that they think SpaceX should have been the ones to move. Or at least the article implied that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/03/2019 04:16 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1168919094265044996
Quote
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.”

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1168919423195013120
Quote
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.”

Can we stop with the "evil ESA was overstating the risk" crap now?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 09/03/2019 04:22 pm
Text of the statement courtesy of Loren Grush


https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/1168917747109191681
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 09/03/2019 04:24 pm
I note wikipedias page on the satellite in question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-Aeolus#cite_note-%E2%80%9D2019-06-27_Spectrum%E2%80%9D-13 states that it is already doing weekly manoevers to maintain orbit.
It would be interesting to know the magnitude of the previous burns, and this one.
Also if SpaceX bird has manoevered recently - if not - burning to a conjunction in the weeks prior pretty much puts the fault on one side.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 09/03/2019 04:24 pm
Seems clear to me that some overall coordination is needed. What is not clear is that it has to be done via "regulation" (what international body has regulatory authority??).

Take further discussion of that idea here I think

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48954
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Marci on 09/03/2019 04:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/03/2019 04:30 pm
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.

I'll note that according to both ESA and reporters in direct contact with ESA sources, ESA never ASKED SpaceX to move. ESA simply "informed" SpaceX of ESA's calculated collision risk (which incorporated ESA internal positioning data not available to SpaceX), and SpaceX "who replied and said that they do not plan to take action”.

ESA might simply have been asking "our data shows a 1:1000 risk, are you planning to maneuver?", to which SpaceX replied "No". This was all the information ESA needed to make the decision to execute their own maneuver which they did.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 09/03/2019 04:40 pm
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.
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)

There may be elements in ESA that would like to make SpaceX look bad, since there is some connection between ESA-ArianeSpace-OneWeb (a direct competitor to Starlink)

Let's not ourselves also play that game ok?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 09/03/2019 04:42 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 09/03/2019 04:44 pm
Seems there are contradicting statements. This ESA statement sounds more positive on SpaceX than the SpaceX statement.

An ESA comment on n-tv a german news channel.

https://www.n-tv.de/wissen/Esa-Satellit-umfliegt-SpaceX-Satelliten-article21248848.html

Quote
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."

Before (ESA did the course correction) ESA had contacted SpaceX. Together they decided that "Aeolus" makes the avoidance maneuver. Agreement is important, said Holger Krag, head of ESA office for Space flight (not sure how to translate Rückstande - which means remnants). Otherwise worst case both satellites maneuver in the same direction and stay on collision course. Communication with SpaceX worked well according to the expert. That's not always the case. "There are satellite operators that don't react at all if contacted."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/03/2019 04:45 pm
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
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 09/03/2019 04:57 pm
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?

Quote
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.

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.

The TLE data set issued is for general consumption. The accuracy is reasonable and it is up to the end user how to present, modify or tease accuracy from various elements.

There is no "more accurate" TLE set for general consumption.

Several billions of dollars of equipment are in use and/or available for general tracking and for refined operations.

Radar, laser and GPS equipment, to name a few, have levels of accuracy and abilities to modify beam patterns and apply mathematical modifications to extract increased accuracy.

There is no way that this increased accuracy will be let out in the wild...for obvious reasons.

Entities can engage in agreements for increased accuracy pertaining to their payloads. This data can again be modified as the user deems to their desired standard.

There is no universal standard that everyone uses to tease data...but the methods can be verified mathematically.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 09/03/2019 05:05 pm
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
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.

True but a certain twitter handle was stating inside information from someone in ESA , probably not sanctioned, that started and continued this mess. I followed this "drama" during the early part...not pretty. Some of it ended in a Forbes article and not as it is presented now.

It appears to be handled now and hopefully kept off twitter in the future.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aameise9 on 09/03/2019 06:54 pm
Interview on "space safety" with ESA expert Holger Krag was just published by German quality daily (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung):

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 09/03/2019 07:22 pm
Interview on "space safety" with ESA expert Holger Krag was just published by German quality daily (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung):

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.
Did he discuss that ESA is seeking funding for just such a system?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 09/03/2019 07:39 pm
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
Twitter was used to report the news after the event.

SpaceX have admitted that they were partly at fault:
Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/03/2019 07:44 pm
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?

Yes and yes.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 09/03/2019 07:44 pm
Interview on "space safety" with ESA expert Holger Krag was just published by German quality daily (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung):

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.
Did he discuss that ESA is seeking funding for just such a system?
No he wasn't asked and it wasn't relevant.

I've used DeepL to provide a translation of the final paragraph:
Quote
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

Seems all sensible stuff.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 09/03/2019 07:56 pm
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
Twitter was used to report the news after the event.

SpaceX have admitted that they were partly at fault:
Quote
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.

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?

Yes twitter was used to report the news after the event. That is not the issue when one has hindsight.

This issue erupted in an incoherent manner with false assumptions by a twitter handle with information from a probably unauthorized individual. This then spread to a few articles. This went on for approximately 12 hours.

Only later did the dust settle but the point being...twitter was not the venue to use for an avoidance maneuver.

That is my opinion and others are welcome to theirs...we don't need this thread derailed so I am done with this until the next adventure occurs.

Thanks for your input though.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 09/03/2019 08:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/03/2019 08:07 pm
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 don't think computation is the issue. If every satellite had a GPS position feeding realtime data, the assessments could probably be done in short order on a typical workstation-class computer with very high accuracy.

The problem is getting that data from many operators at once, sending it to a central location in a reasonable time, then disseminating to all the operators. And also that debris isn't going to give you GPS locations, and debris is fy far the biggest share of objects and will be even if SpaceX launches 12,000 Starlinks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/03/2019 08:15 pm
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.

Orbits can be somewhat chaotic. Drag is a very big factor and it's not a constant, it's a variable. The very high upper atmosphere of the Earth can be more or less dense by a considerable amount, depending largely on solar activity. So you can't make precise orbital predictions very far out. This is more true the lower the altitude of the satellite (the more it is influenced by Earth's atmosphere).

So you have to work with probability, and 1-in-1000 is not a bad threshold to work with. As mentioned, there is some uncertainty in orbital tracking, in the time delay to get that information out, and variability in the orbit itself.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/03/2019 08:31 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/03/2019 08:51 pm
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

It is lower than the deployment orbit, presumably it is one of the satellites they are using for deorbit testing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/03/2019 09:12 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 09/03/2019 09:18 pm
Did he discuss that ESA is seeking funding for just such a system?
No he wasn't asked and it wasn't relevant.
That he wasn't asked is, in my view, a journalistic oversight, because, again in my view, it's highly relevant. YMMV.
Quote

I've used DeepL to provide a translation of the final paragraph:
Quote
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

Seems all sensible stuff.
Seems like he's advocating for the solution ESA is seeking funding for.

It's not wrong to seek funding. it IS wrong to try to cast aspersions by omission on other entities in order to make the issue seem graver than it is. Again, IMHO.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/03/2019 10:57 pm
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

Just checked. The OST sez you’re responsible for your own hardware and if something bad is going to happen ya gotta talk with whoever it makes sense to talk to. I paraphrased a bit. Mostly general principals.

There are some other UN space agreements that I am less familiar with but I do believe get more specific on narrow issues. Seems like a reasonable venue for traffic rules. It’s not all that controversial an issue. Just need everybody on the same page.

Back to StarLink...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/04/2019 12:14 am
I’m impressed by the ESA representative in that German article.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: matthewkantar on 09/04/2019 01:01 am
I only caught the tail end of it, but this issue made NPR this evening.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 09/04/2019 05:02 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 09/04/2019 05:42 am
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?

Navigation has always been the responsibility of the operator/owner for moving vehicles. Standardizing something like a TCAS algorithm (ascending node UP/left, descending node DOWN/right), and having multiple TLE clearinghouses that an operator sucks in data from allows for TLE data crosschecks. SpaceX still basically uploads an abridged TLE model to Starlink, which basically needs to decide based on last received model (in case of comms failure), so SpaceX as the operator has their own responsibility to make sure their final uploaded model is clean. I imagine it would be the same with other megaconstellation operators as they have the manpower. For smaller fleets and single sat operators, they may be downloading a merged abridged model from a national TLE clearinghouse to use as is, which is a single point of failure for those operators.

Perhaps the somewhat more relevant issue is, for autonomous maneuver, sats don't currently have the equivalent of an AIS or ADS-B beacon for other sats to detect their intentions directly (with some similarity for vehicle-to-vehicle P2P communication for cars aka V2V to share sensor and motion planning data as part of self driving regulations). Even if they had beacons that showed intent, there's the related issue that if you have two sats with only electric thrusters, could they detect the other's beacon early enough to maneuver enough to avoid a collision?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 09/04/2019 07:29 am
Interview on "space safety" with ESA expert Holger Krag was just published by German quality daily (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung):

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.
Did he discuss that ESA is seeking funding for just such a system?

He said that ESA is working on such a system. The funding part was not said. Here is the relevant part:

Quote
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.

My translation (not word for word):

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Alastor on 09/04/2019 08:15 am
He said that ESA is working on such a system. The funding part was not said. Here is the relevant part:

My translation (not word for word):

Quote
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.
Bold mine.

You may not be aware of how ESA works, but it is essentially equivalent to NASA. So an ESA representative saying "We will propose a new program to our member states" is roughly equivalent to NASA saying "We will propose a new program to congress".
So in the extract you quoted, he is essentially saying that they are seeking funding to develop a solution to this problem.

Now the issue is not that they have a project on the topic nor that they are seeking funding for it. It's not "they are making a fuss about it just to get funding" as some here seem to believe.
The very fact that they are proposing a program on this topic means that they are being genuinely worried about this issue and think that it is worth investing a lot of money (that they could certainly use for other things) on this.

Now the real issue with this kind of stuff is that you can invest all the money you want on developing a solution, it is useless if you don't get an international agreement on using it. Hence why they are trying to raise awareness on the issue. If international partners don't care about this, you're getting nowhere.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 09/04/2019 05:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/04/2019 06:15 pm
Air Force statement to the Verge with additional details:

Quote
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.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/3/20847243/spacex-starlink-satellite-european-space-agency-aeolus-conjunction-space-debris
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/05/2019 07:48 pm
https://youtu.be/RJcnQq8XDoY
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/05/2019 08:07 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 09/05/2019 08:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 09/05/2019 09:08 pm
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.

let's take general collision avoidance to our general collision avoidance thread, ok?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48954
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 09/05/2019 10:40 pm
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/06/2019 03:48 am
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...

SpaceX filed paperwork that would allow them to do up to four launches this year.  That doesn't necessarily mean they will.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 09/06/2019 06:43 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 09/07/2019 05:24 pm
Inter-satellite laser link updatehttps://cis471.blogspot.com/2019/09/inter-satellite-laser-link-update.html
Making cost-effective ISLLs for LEO sats is harder than @elonmusk & others thought, but production models are on the horizon & will improve over time.

https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1170365889360752640
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/07/2019 05:58 pm

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.

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.

Barley, I posted a response in:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48954 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48954)
As per Lar’s request.

Lar, see? I’m trying to play nice. Sometimes it’s just sooo hard.

Phil

Edit: LAarrr! I can’t get the quote right. grumble, grumble.

Fixed the quote. Usually when there are problems it is an extra stray (or missing) [ or ] 
In this case it was a missing ]
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FlattestEarth on 09/07/2019 09:46 pm
https://spacenews.com/spacex-says-more-starlink-orbits-will-speed-service-reduce-launch-needs/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 09/07/2019 10:25 pm
Now @SpaceX wants to switch the first phase to sats in 72 orbital planes. Wider, less dense coverage. Faster deployment. Probably no ISLLs? http://SpaceNews.com https://shar.es/aXjSBH @ArthurSauzay @Megaconstellati @cashel @MarkJHandley @OscarVisiedo  They need to plan ahead..

https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1170449279376216065
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 09/07/2019 10:26 pm
.@SpaceX' latest filing with the @FCC seeking to increase orbital planes for #Starlink from 24 to 72 (file# SAT-MOD-20190830-00087) is available at:https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/attachment_menu.hts?id_app_num=131512&acct=599269&id_form_num=15&filing_key=-436235

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1170456710110203904
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 09/08/2019 12:19 pm
As @TMFAssociates points out, it's remarkable how @SpaceX proposed a new @FCC processing round reviewing all #megaconstellations after @amazon's filings for #ProjectKuiper but believes its desired fundamental change in orbit geometries doesn't require such

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1170656427268067328
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: soltasto on 09/08/2019 02:37 pm
Quote
fundamental change in orbit geometries

Looks like they don't know the meaning of that...

SpaceX is asking the FCC to do a new processing round for satellites in completely new orbital shells, while the new Orbital planes SpaceX is asking for are contained in the same shell.

The comparison would have been fine if compared to the SpaceX VLEO constellation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ed on 09/08/2019 05:03 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 09/08/2019 07:29 pm
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/08/2019 08:31 pm
@TMFAssociates is, objectively, a SpaceX troll. Worth keeping that in mind.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 09/08/2019 09:59 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 09/09/2019 06:19 am
Was it?  Or was it just the heaviest payload they carried to date?

They carried the first batch to above the ISS level, I understand at request of NASA. How much difference would it make if they carry them only to 250km? It should also make for faster precession into their different planes.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ed on 09/09/2019 07:23 am
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?

I just would find it a bit odd if SpaceX would not aim to fill each plane consistently with one falcon launch.
Migrating sats from other planes is time consuming and needs extra effort.

I think 72 sats 3 x (22 + 2 spares) per launch would be great,
but this is only my uneducated wild guess.

The whether this this achievable with Falcon reuse remains to be seen.

Filling two planes and one plane only half and then complete it with another lauch might be the next best thing. This also works with the original number of 60 sats per launch.

Hence my original question.

Ed
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 09/09/2019 10:39 am
I just would find it a bit odd if SpaceX would not aim to fill each plane consistently with one falcon launch.
Migrating sats from other planes is time consuming and needs extra effort.
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.
This lets you drop off 20 in one orbit, and 30 in another.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ed on 09/09/2019 11:36 am
I just would find it a bit odd if SpaceX would not aim to fill each plane consistently with one falcon launch.
Migrating sats from other planes is time consuming and needs extra effort.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 09/09/2019 12:21 pm
I just would find it a bit odd if SpaceX would not aim to fill each plane consistently with one falcon launch.
Migrating sats from other planes is time consuming and needs extra effort.
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.
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.

If we assume a purely propulsive ion engine manoever to change planes, it will take much of a year, based on the observed performance of the satellites.
If as I suspect, they have in fact fitted a ~200W, not ~3000W ion engine to the first launch, for ~10kg more mass, they can get ~10* the acceleration, or be able to move one plane in around a month - assuming they are not limited on production of these.

Masswise, this would be a wash, assuming an injection at ~430km (to miss ISS), with a transit to 550km, the cost of additional ion engine mass is equaled by propellant saving on S2.
Orbit raising would be only several days.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 09/09/2019 01:33 pm
Speedevil, I think its very unlikely that they perform plane change maneuvers. Its far more likely that they distribute the sats using precession. Thats how everybody else (i.e. sun synchronous sats) do it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/09/2019 02:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 09/09/2019 07:40 pm
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.

Thats my understanding as well. More planes that have a smaller angle difference, which makes populating multiple planes using precession (or drift) with one launch more viable and faster than before.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 09/09/2019 09:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 09/09/2019 09:34 pm
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.

This is my understanding too. It's in the realm IMO that neither using precession, or using thrust is clearly ridiculous, and which is preferred may be dominated by other operational constraints.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/09/2019 11:39 pm
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 upcoming launches are using a lower insertion orbit. I think it's 350 km? That will speed precession compared to the 440 km insertion on the v0.9 flight.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 09/10/2019 09:14 pm
https://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-24-starlink-launches-next-year/

24 Starlink launches next year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 09/10/2019 09:14 pm
SpaceX targeting 24 Starlink launches next year:

https://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-24-starlink-launches-next-year/ (https://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-24-starlink-launches-next-year/)

I guess that means SpaceX is also targeting 40+ total launches next year...  8)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/10/2019 09:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 09/10/2019 11:13 pm
https://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-24-starlink-launches-next-year/

24 Starlink launches next year.

More launches/year than some constellations have satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 09/11/2019 12:39 am
SpaceX hopes for 24 Starlink launches in 2020 & up to 4 this year. http://SpaceNews.com https://shar.es/aXdTVl
That's > 1,000 sats they need for  "economic viability". Has the FCC approved the orbits? Probably no ISLLs.

https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1171542311416680450
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/11/2019 01:22 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 09/11/2019 01:30 am
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?

In just a few years SpaceX may be the world's largest Launch services provider, Spacecraft manufacturer, satellite manufacturer, rocket engine manufacturer, rocket manufacturer, and satellite services provider.  :o

In some of these areas they may not only be largest, but larger than all of the others put together.

Pretty amazing since just a little over a decade ago they were basically launching hobby rockets.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/11/2019 01:53 am
Pretty amazing since just a little over a decade ago they were basically launching hobby rockets.

SpaceX was never launching hobby rockets.  Every one of their attempts, even though the first few weren't successful, was a full orbital launch vehicle.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Norm38 on 09/11/2019 11:00 am
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JamesH65 on 09/11/2019 12:07 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: matthewkantar on 09/11/2019 01:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/11/2019 03:15 pm
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.

Somewhat true, but there will need to be batches of some size for the major components.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Norm38 on 09/11/2019 03:52 pm
Musk did say that mass production is orders of magnitude harder than one-off or batch builds.  They have to be in mass production to build at these volumes, and that does mean freezing as much as possible.  Certainly it means formal change management and making improvements as formal new revisions.
Not doing it that way on a production line leads to build errors.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 09/11/2019 04:14 pm
"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.

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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/11/2019 08:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 09/11/2019 10:24 pm
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/11/2019 10:58 pm
This is what they said in their request to change the orbital configuration:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ludus on 09/12/2019 08:01 am
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.

When do you think they will transition to including the inter-satellite links? 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/12/2019 08:16 am
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?


The latter. Continuous improvements. Freezing the design is not the way SpaceX does things.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 09/12/2019 08:27 am
When do you think they will transition to including the inter-satellite links?

If they don't now with the next launch I think they will build a fully operational constellation before they introduce them. Sats with laser links will be bigger and heavier, reducing the number of sats per Falcon launch.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/12/2019 06:37 pm
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






Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 09/12/2019 07:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 09/12/2019 08:53 pm
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.
The orbital inclination is 53 degrees.
If they are deployed at 550km, three degrees (~300km) north only puts them at around 60 degrees from the horizon, so I probably have coverage.

60N - 700km north of the northernmost ground track - means the satellite gets not much above 30 degrees - which is getting close to the point where the constellation may become extremely spotty.
(The official angle they can't provide service is 15 degrees above the horizon).

Any significant obstruction at all to the south is going to dramatically cut your likelyhood of continuous coverage..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/12/2019 10:28 pm
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.

Just about anything is better than bouncing to GEO.

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.

Still, once they roll out lateral sats they either ditch the old system, run two systems in parallel or have a plan to integrate them. The last two options would last until the legacy sats hit EOL.

Reality warning. If Elon depended on me for his economic forecasts he would now be a very successful shoe salesman.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ninjaneer on 09/12/2019 11:44 pm
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.

Were I to bet on it, I'd wager ~$500 for the setup if it's the cheap phased array.  Still much lower than ~$1200 for a regular dish and $2000 for the 1.8m oversized edition.  Monthly packages may match ViaSat prices of $2/gb at first.

If they have to fall back like OneWeb and offer twin dishes to start, then I'd guess about $4000-$5000 for the setup, with each dish coming closer in size to RV in-motion dishes (~15 inch domes).

Nobody with terrestrial internet is going to jump unless they're a superfan with deep pockets.  I kind of feel bad for all the people who overhyped themselves.  I'm patiently waiting, though.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 09/13/2019 12:48 am
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZChris13 on 09/13/2019 12:56 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 09/13/2019 01:48 am
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.

Yep. If SpaceX can offer competitive rates and bandwidth caps as compared to big satellite I'll shift in a heart beat, and Elon is certainly betting that I won't be alone.

On the other hand, if you live in a metro area and have fiber or the like? Yeah, don't think you'll be too impressed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 09/13/2019 02:23 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: space_snap828 on 09/13/2019 02:33 am
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've wondered if net neutrality enforcement is going to be unnecessary to enforce in the near future. With the introduction of high-speed satellite internet, every ISP now has to compete with internet service from the sky. The monopolies and duopolies they've enjoyed, that have allowed them to jack prices and treat data unfairly, are coming to an end.
Perhaps the market is solving the issue. We shall see.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/13/2019 02:37 am
The satellites won't be great competitors in densely populated areas.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DaveH62 on 09/13/2019 02:48 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/13/2019 02:53 am
72 satellites?  Where are you getting that from?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/13/2019 03:57 am
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 09/13/2019 04:22 am
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.

The entire constellation is going to be refreshed approximately every 5 years, as that is the nominal orbital life of an individual satellite.  Whether the satellites themselves get upgraded as frequently is another question; I expect they will.

It allows Starlink to stay technologically fresh and competitive.  A virtuous cycle if you will... sustainable cheap launch allows frequent physical refresh... which allows frequent refresh of improvements (competitive capabilities, costs, etc.)... which is also demanded by satellite lifetime... which benefits from and requires sustainable cheap launch.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 09/13/2019 07:24 am
"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.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/13/2019 09:12 am
"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.

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.
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.

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.

Yes. This.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/13/2019 09:21 am
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".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tuna-Fish on 09/13/2019 09:34 am
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.

The second the sats are dense enough in the sky that each groundstation can always see more than one bird from the same plane (or alternatively, can always see sats from more than one plane), they no longer need backbone everywhere, they just need a groundstation with power, as they can bounce the message between groundstations and sats until it reaches somewhere with backbone access. 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 09/13/2019 10:59 am
"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.

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.
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.

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.
Of course there are small production lines...

But the lines are not the same as when making 10,000,000 TVs per year, and you'll find a lot more variance and ability to improve/fix things during the production runs.

All I was saying was that the fact SpaceX is making 1000s doesn't mean the design ias frozen and all satellites will be the same, as some people were suggesting.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 09/13/2019 11:54 am
Yes, agreed. Major cities are taken care of mostly, but once you get to rural locations there are vasts numbers that simply can't afford that "last mile/km".  This is where Starlink can get big wins if it can hit the right price point.

I'd love it on my boat - Have Iridium but it's expensive and slow. A high speed internet connection at a good price would be huge.

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".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JamesH65 on 09/13/2019 12:16 pm
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".

Exactly. You don't have to get far our of major conurbations to find the net access (and 4G) is very poor indeed, and that's in a relatively densely populated place like the UK. And someone mentioned they used mobile access and hotspots in a post above. But those hotspots need net access somehow, Starlink would be a great way of providing that in many places.

And, here in the UK, even in major conurbations you get areas with terrible terrestrial net access, and 4g is expensive for large amounts of data (netflix etc).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/13/2019 03:13 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/13/2019 03:14 pm
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?

Is it really that hard to look back a couple days in this thread?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.msg1990633#msg1990633
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/13/2019 05:07 pm
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.
SpaceX Starlink : Uses beyond just Earth communications (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49024.0)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 09/13/2019 05:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 09/13/2019 05:38 pm
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 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?

Sort of seems shady but I find the notion intriguing.

Off my rocker?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/13/2019 05:42 pm
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.
SpaceX Starlink : Uses beyond just Earth communications (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49024.0)
Additional thread suggestions:

Satellite design/development/manufacture?

Deployment strategies/timelines/orbits?

Operations configurations/pricing/ground terminals?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ninjaneer on 09/13/2019 06:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 09/13/2019 06:20 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 09/13/2019 07:11 pm
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.

I think the lack of laser links is a drawback but not the dealbreaker some think.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ninjaneer on 09/13/2019 09:10 pm
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?

Yes.  That's just an internal dual WAN with one of the ports exposed as an external RJ45 with some traffic shaping rules applied.

In practice, though, that's a duct-taped feature that supports competitors' networks. Too much room for finger-pointing.  Advanced LAN/WAN features in ISP-provided routers tend to be poorly implemented without that kind of headache.  And a good gateway balancer like you are mentally picturing would cost more than the ISP modem itself.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 09/14/2019 12:09 am
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.

I think the lack of laser links is a drawback but not the dealbreaker some think.
Where are you getting 300km from?
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 09/14/2019 12:26 am
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/14/2019 12:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/14/2019 12:51 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 09/14/2019 12:54 am
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.
Indeed, but much less than the ~70 degrees implied by 300km range.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ludus on 09/14/2019 02:53 am
https://www.al.com/news/2019/09/can-elon-musks-spacex-bring-high-speed-internet-to-alabama.html (https://www.al.com/news/2019/09/can-elon-musks-spacex-bring-high-speed-internet-to-alabama.html)

This article estimates 250k-300k in rural Alabama with no wired internet access. I’m curious how that fit’s with estimates of the capacity of first generation Starlink to provide 25Mbps or better. AL is about 135k km^2.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 09/14/2019 05:43 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/14/2019 01:26 pm
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.


Where are the 15 and/or 25 deg numbers coming from?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/14/2019 01:31 pm
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?

My numbers are from SpaceX's FCC filings.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/14/2019 01:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/14/2019 02:08 pm
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.

The problems go beyond licensing. Well, not problems but design issues. To make lateral coms work additional antennas are needed along with more bandwidth and power.  Any particular sat would be handling its ground customers with one system and an unknown amount of traffic on the lateral systems. Not a show stopper, just things to be dealt with.

As per RF vs laser... back in the day a laser running at 5% conversion efficiency was hot stuff. Don’t know where that stands now but the beam spread is small compared to any but the most elaborate (heavy, expensive) RF antennas. My gut says lasers might be a bit heavier but draw less power on the transmit side.

On the receive side I have no clue but (again gut) doubt it would mass much. No idea about power.

When we see fewer sats per launch or F9 expended, we’ll know something is up.

Phil

Edit: a reconsideration: a receive device for laser signal would have optics that could be heavy.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 09/14/2019 04:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 09/14/2019 05:11 pm
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.

For most plausible RF intersatelite links, unless they are at a frequency where the atmosphere is strongly absorbing, some will spill to the ground.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/14/2019 05:20 pm
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.

The UN ITU has role but I don’t know exactly what it’s authorities are. As you said it works with GEO but don’t know how it works.

There was talk earlier in this thread, I think with accompanying FCC docs, concerning the different constellations interfering with each other and with GEO sats. IIRC the upshot was the providers need to work together to avoid problems. A constellation cross link could conceivably run on past the target and hit someone else’s sat.

If the ICU structures similar to the Outer Space Treaty authority ultimately devolves to the concerned States which in this case would be the FCC.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/14/2019 07:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 09/14/2019 09:51 pm
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.
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 remind typical "feature" of SpaceX requirements, not surprisingly repeated in all optic positions.
Quote
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:

    Extended hours and weekend work, as needed, in support of critical milestones and operational needs
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:
Quote
7.1.1LASERS AND OTHER SYSTEMS THAT OPERATE ABOVE 3000 GHz

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.
For those who have never heard about NTIA.
Here is relevant and very concise explanation:
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/osmhome/roosa4.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 09/14/2019 11:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/15/2019 01:35 am
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.

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.

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 09/15/2019 01:59 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 09/15/2019 03:53 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Comga on 09/15/2019 05:07 am
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.

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
No it does not make sense
Yes it has to be a laser
Power requirements going up is very bad
There is no need to worry about seeing a laser link from beyond the nearest one. R squared and pointing will prevent that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 09/15/2019 08:23 am
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.

You can do that of course if you know what you are looking for. But the laser links are high bandwidth low latency. No fancy post processing (takes time) and as small interference as possible (bandwidth). Also you want to have the sun in your receiver, so that has to be pointing too. Assuming they use the same telescope for emitting and receiving with a beam splitter, the receiving cone would be the same as the emitting cone. So too wide angle might be counter productive.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 09/15/2019 08:48 am
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.
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.
2. Beams forming and steering is done by mirrors. There is no problem to make steerable solutions. It is routine work.  Unlike RF this can be done in fine flexible and compact manner.
Detectors can (and usually do) use steerable mirrors either. Interference is "weak" problem.
Mechanical optical scanners using steerable mirrors are old as a modern astronomy is.

3. Starlink pizzas have amazing power ration. The sail they have is huge. Power is not an issue either.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Comga on 09/15/2019 02:34 pm
Yes. It takes a lasercomm engineer
(I am not a lasercomm engineer but am qualified to be one if the opportunity arose.)
Bandwidths are not like microwaves. Communication is rarely coherent but it could be.  But there is an enormous amount of bandwidth in that sense.
There is little fear of crosstalk
Power is always an issue
Lasercomm can be made nearly insensitive to solar blinding.
A project I was on once successfully pointed at a moving satellite and a ground station but it wasn’t simple. That level of beam steering is very difficult, and would be needed for links between planes
Starlink can buy lasercomm links, just not at a price that works for constellations of thousands of satellites.
SpaceX bought lidar systems for the first few Dragon flights, then made their own.
We will see what Starlink can come up with
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 09/15/2019 07:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 09/15/2019 08:59 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 09/15/2019 09:03 pm
So there must be something that is hard/difficult/nonobvious that we miss.

Forgive me if I missed a now-dismissed concern but I vaguely recollected that one factor for ISL was affordable optics.  Combined with other challenges it could mushroom.  IDK.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 09/15/2019 10:49 pm
So from the above posts, it seems that if Starlink uses RF ISL then we would know about it due to licencing requirements but not if they are using lasers. Wide beam lasers would require significantly extra power and I think unlikely. Precision aiming and tracking would certainly be a major challenge but not insurmountable. So I believe it remains at least plausible if not likely that the next Starlink launch has satellites with laser ISL.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/15/2019 11:15 pm
I know SX likes commonality but might it make sense for the ‘final’ rollout to have two different types? Lower orbits more densely packed with direct customer connection and in the higher orbit sats that do only cross connect and high bandwidth downlink to data centers to hit copper. The customer connect sats would have lateral coms only to the high sats.

Just thinking out loud.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 09/16/2019 05:09 am
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.

I may be visualizing this incorrectly but it seems that neighboring satellites in the same plane are at a constant distances and slowly changing bearing; while neighboring satellites in adjacent planes are at a very slowly changing bearing and slowly changing distance.

You could have a useful net without dealing with rapid changes, re-targeting or needing a fast lock.  It would need multiple links per satellite, but that can be done by replicating the optical hardware.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Comga on 09/16/2019 05:58 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 09/16/2019 11:35 am
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.

dondar mentioned beam steering is done routinely. I guess he knows more about it than I do, so I tend to believe him.

Lets break it down how I would do the implementation. The optical layout would be something like this:

Emitter and Receiver are mounted at 90 deg to each other with a beam splitter in between. The beam splitter is 50/50, such that half the emitter beam is going through to the exit and half if it is lost. The same happens to the receiver beam in reverse, where half the light goes straight through to the emitter and is lost and the other half is going to the receiver. After the beam splitter comes a beam splitter and a small, commercial telescope with an exit that goes to the steerable mirror solution in tip/tilt.

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.

In front of the receiver is a 45 deg mirror with a hole in the middle. Whenever the telescope is not pointed directly at the emitter satellite, the light would leave the whole and be detected by the camera, which then can correct the steering of the mirror at the exit. Both reciever and emitter could be optical fibres to guide the light to some other location in the satellite.

I would be happy for comments and where people see things that are difficult.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 09/16/2019 01:51 pm
@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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 09/16/2019 02:19 pm
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.
Indeed, but much less than the ~70 degrees implied by 300km range.
300km was a worst case number. The actual range is farther, to be sure.

(as to where I got the number, somewhere behind me, not too far away, and a bit lower than my head...)

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?
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.

(As others say, there might not be a lot of available bandwidth for intersat microwave linkw)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 09/16/2019 02:44 pm
@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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: philw1776 on 09/16/2019 03:51 pm
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.

Perhaps use of WDM where certain clusters of sats use certain wavelengths.  Can also be varied over time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/16/2019 04:02 pm
@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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 09/16/2019 04:18 pm

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.

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.

Rotating a single satellite 90 degrees leaves it with two working links, so you would not have to rotate the entire array instantly.   Rotating a few at a time over the Pacific for example.  Still it would add some interesting operational constraints.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gdelottle on 09/16/2019 04:27 pm
@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.

Actually a few microrad beam width, not degrees, are achievable.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: eriblo on 09/16/2019 05:10 pm
@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.
Even 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 09/16/2019 06:00 pm
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.

You probably want to minimise the chances of illuminating satellites that are not part of the Starlink constellation. Also illuminating targets on the ground.

There's probably no real problem, but people can get really upset if they think there is - see the recent bout of outrage from parts of the astronimical community - and foreign governments can be even less rational!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/16/2019 06:18 pm
There is a tension between a tight beam to keep the signal concentrated and a wide beam to reduce targeting precision. As usual the trade off will be somewhere between he extremes. But we need numbers to even begin looking at the trades. So here are a few things that might be on point.

- what is the narrowest beam that is economically realistic. What wavelength, output and conversion efficiency? That will cover a range of options but maybe set some limits.

- on the receiving end I’d guess CCD but only guessing. Again guessing, the array need only be big enough to fill the focal plane of the unknown optics but sensitivity is important. Optimize for one wavelength or multiplex several. Use polarization for encoding?

- dB loss over the expected distances.

- Cryo can radically boost CCD sensitivity. Coolant & system mass vs bigger array & battery mass. Would it survive reentry?

The more I think about this the bigger the trade space gets. There are at least a dozen other things my amateur astronomy dweebishness bring to mind. Probably why SX is putting it off.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 09/16/2019 07:12 pm
The beamwidth of the laser for satlinks is a funktion of the pointing accuracy of the steerable mirror. You want your laser beam cone to be larger than the pointing error. So a too narrow laser beam might be counterproductive. At the same time, you want the beam as narrow as possible to reduce the power requirements.

Come to think of it, optical com systems are not superbright. Maybe they can't buy the laser off the shelf and developing modulation hardware for a more powerful system is probably not easy. I have no idea how that is done anyway, comga, can you comment?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 09/16/2019 07:51 pm
To give you guys an idea of general feasibility, here's another company which seems to be offering a completed module for space laser communications systems (http://www.spacemicro.com/assets/datasheets/rf-and-microwave/lasercom.pdf). In summary, they claim 4,750km max range for an LEO cross-link at 51W for 10Gbps at 7.5kg, to 240W for 100Gbps at 26kg. These options seem well within the mass/power requirements of Starlink, if they are to be believed.

The company seems to be well established, and that module datasheet gives you a sense of power and size required to communicate as a cross-link in LEO.

There is also an entire panel on laser satellite communications in an industry conference on "directed energy": https://www.boozallen.com/d/multimedia/2019-directed-energy-summit-video-highlights.html (https://www.boozallen.com/d/multimedia/2019-directed-energy-summit-video-highlights.html)

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.

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/say-it-with-space-lasers-optical-comsats-for-major-war/ (https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/say-it-with-space-lasers-optical-comsats-for-major-war/)

Here's the wikipedia on laser communications in space. Looks like the ESA already has a functional laser communications system that can communicate between LEO and GEO. My impression is that because there is no atmosphere, sat-sat communications is considerably simpler despite the high relative velocities. The first successful sat-sat optical link was achieved as early as 2008:
https://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-78/7420_read-14120/ (https://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-78/7420_read-14120/)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/16/2019 07:56 pm
At a minimum the total bandwidth of the ISlink should be equal to that of the to ground total bandwidth of the sat. But it would be better if it was at 2X.
This implies that the devices will be multi-spectral with multiple different color lasers and detectors on a single telescope/device.

It has never been the electronic side that has been the challenge but the optical materials. Based on the optical gain/loss values for particular material it drives primarily the laser output power requirement. Laser output points power then sets thermal requirements. Size is already set because it mustfit in the sat flatpack. There is a ~30cm thickness allowing for a posible 20cm diameter telescope and a aimable mirror that can give a 90 degree field of view aiming on 2 axis (the mirror is retangular in shape to make it able to move +-45 in one axis and 30/60 in the other.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 09/16/2019 08:21 pm
Another interesting technical comparison, done by a group with more experience with satellites/communications:

http://www.mit.edu/~portillo/files/Comparison-LEO-IAC-2018-slides.pdf

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.

I actually on ran into these slides while looking at Telesat's lasercom ISLs.

I am not experienced enough and have not spent more time looking through the author's assumptions, though, so I encourage others to take a look at those slides. So many things change with these systems so often that the conclusions may no longer be valid.

edit:
Here's the paper that came out of that conference:
http://systemarchitect.mit.edu/docs/delportillo19a.pdf

edit2:
and some quotes from the conclusion:
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/16/2019 08:40 pm

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 09/16/2019 08:56 pm
Thx for this trove of data, will look at it in daylight tomorrow.!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/16/2019 09:02 pm

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/16/2019 09:12 pm

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?

The v0.9 satellites don't have intersatellite links. The estimated throughput in that case in the paper is about 10 terabits per second. Using 227 kg and 10 terabits per second is even worse at 10 megabits per kilogram.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 09/16/2019 09:12 pm

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.

I'm still reading through the paper, personally - I'm not seeing these numbers anywhere? I'm guessing you personally calculated them off of some of the figures in the paper? I can certainly believe the numbers, as the bandwidth/sat on Starlink is higher, but the OneWeb satellite mass is quite a bit smaller.

The "efficiency" mentioned in the paper refers to how much of the hardware bandwidth on each satellite is utilizable due to antenna, orbit design, and other parameters. The number, with some assumptions, is 58% for Telesat, 25.5% for SpaceX, and 21.7% for OneWeb. It varies a lot on ground station support - SpaceX requires quite a few more ground stations than everyone else, especially without ISL, simply due to the large number of satellites.

I think the thing we can conclude from this paper with quite some certainty is that if all of these systems were in orbit today, Telesat is easily the most efficient from a utilization (not payload mass) standpoint. They plan on flying fewer, bigger birds with a heck of a lot more capability per bird, with a fairly well thought out launch constellation that efficiently emphasizes population distribution on earth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 09/16/2019 09:17 pm
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:
Quote
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 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/16/2019 10:10 pm
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.

It's not easier or cheaper to launch into a polar orbit.  Choosing polar orbits can simplify the system design because one inclination gives you coverage of the entire planet.  SpaceX doesn't care so much about global coverage, they want to concentrate on the populated areas with some higher inclination coverage later on.  Telesat's system is a mix of polar and lower inclination.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gaballard on 09/16/2019 10:12 pm
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:
Quote
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 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 09/16/2019 10:14 pm
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.

anyone have any guesses on this? The CEO vaguely describes the target satellite in the video from the March 20, 2019 directed energy summit around 30:00.

https://www.boozallen.com/d/multimedia/2019-directed-energy-summit-video-highlights.html

- they try to use commercial components for the communication side of things, keeping costs low (everything up to the fiber - they build the steering mechanism and optics)
- "flying later this year" in LEO
- 100Gbps performance
- Low-SWaP, the size of "two Dells," whatever that means
- were able to find someone who was "well-funded and wanted to do this"

Would just be useful to get a sense of how well a modern sat-sat laser link functions if we knew the sat it's on.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/16/2019 10:17 pm
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:
Quote
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 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.

If they were always sunlit, you will get internet outage at night time. Anyways, while polar users (planes, settlements, boats, etc.) aren't numerous, they can tend to have deeper pockets. The recent nearly billion dollar contract that Iridium has signed with the DoD demonstrates that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/16/2019 10:23 pm
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.

LEO comsats don't need to be in SSO, and I don't think any of the major constellations plan to use SSO.  There is a particular orbit that stays in sunlight and if you have a constellation of multiple planes how are you planning to keep all of them in that orbit at the same time?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Comga on 09/16/2019 11:04 pm

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cosmicvoid on 09/17/2019 03:41 am
Haven't seen this news item yet on this forum, so here is Spacex's plan to shuffle its constellation:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/spacex-wants-rearrange-starlink-satellites-002119185.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 09/17/2019 06:55 am
No need to get cranky. I didnt try to 'solve' lasercom, I try to get a good enough understanding of the design quantitatively, not qualitatively, in order to understand what the biggest or hardest problem is. To do so, one needs to have a rudimentary idea of the design.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 09/17/2019 07:03 am

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 09/17/2019 10:25 pm
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 not have a discussion based on authority, I have no clue about laser-com for instance. But I would love to understand the engineering challenges as they seem to be fun things to think about. I dont have time to go through the other information that was provided, kind of buried in work for the week. But we will get there.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tywin on 09/18/2019 12:06 pm
Starlink in Tesla?

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1173978862625202184
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/18/2019 01:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 09/18/2019 04:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 09/18/2019 05:51 pm
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.
It does sound like he just threw a bunch of random terms together that he didn't understand.

Not sure exactly what the criticism is of the note.

In intro paragraph of the MS Report contains the exact sentence tweeted:

"SpaceX is accelerating plans to deploy and commercialize satellite broadband with significant implications for capital demands, valuation… and potential strategic implications for Tesla."  It seems like people are reading that as capital demand/valuation implications for Tesla rather than those for SpaceX and Synergies with Tesla.

The actual Morgan Stanley Research Report (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6416324-SPACE-20190917-SpaceX-valuation-Morgan-Stanley.html) is reasonably straightforward with no outrageous claims.  The only Tesla statement in the body of the report is a fairly pedestrian remark: 

                            (https://i.imgur.com/SOZEa0H.jpg)

The report has some interesting (if perhaps spitballed) market opportunity/revenue projections through 2040.

And the main thrust of the remark simply seems to be a fairly uncontroversial:

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.

While in general those criticisms regularly apply, I don't see the reason for using them against either the tweet or MS's Research Report.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/18/2019 07:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Wudizzle on 09/18/2019 07:12 pm
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.

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.'
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/18/2019 07:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 09/18/2019 07:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/18/2019 07:29 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 09/18/2019 07:35 pm
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.'

Strong points in both posts.  I'd not realized (or forgot about) Musk's shutting that down.  MS didn't have it as any large opportunity anyway.  Sort of wondered why they included it.

Just didn't seem to be such a stretch compared to the typical manner in which journalists butcher technical details.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 09/18/2019 08:40 pm
Morgan Stanley estimates SpaceX's current value at around  $52.2 billion. Looking forward, they estimate $5 to $120 billion valuations. (Not very precise :-). Seeing is believing.

https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1174417773285429248
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/18/2019 10:41 pm
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.

True but there are many kinds of automotive telematics systems that currently use "stealth" cellular modems in automobiles and long-haul trucks (that is, cellular connectivity for system updates and status reports ... "telemetry" if you will ... ) totally apart from the voice cell phones carried by the drivers. Plus the automotive systems that do entertainment software updates piggybacked on commercial satellite radio signals or other networks. Large trucking companies do driver-oversight and route routing/planning through cellular and satellite as well, and have for years.

Having their own "in-house" network available for all these features could prove very useful for Tesla's own longer-term plans, especially if electric freight trucks become a significant player in that market. These applications are totally separate from the driver logging in to check Facebook and Twitter while the Auto Pilot drives her around.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/19/2019 01:08 am
I threw out a question earlier and got no response. I’d like to think its because other subthreads got hot. Maybe it’s so dumb it didn’t warrant a response, but I’d rather be told that than be left wondering. I promise not to cry.

I was asking about the possibility of two different types of sats. Lower orbit sats would do end user contact and higher level sats would specialize in ISL and high bandwidth ground links to hit copper. The low sats would have lasers to pass data to the high sats. In effect the high sats would be routers.

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?

Pros:
-The low sats would not need complicated routing tables.  If its not in the local table, send it to a router and let the big boy figure it out. Makes the sat less expensive.
-The low sats would never be relaying the data from other sats. The laser coms would need less bandwidth and have to deal with only one other sat at a time (maybe two during a handoff).  Less expensive system.
-The low sats that decay the fastest, would be relatively inexpensive.
-the high sats would focus on routing, not customer contact. Simplified design, in that respect.
-Things I haven’t thought of.

Cons:
-The the handoff from one router to another might be tricky.
-maybe less resilient to loss of a sat. Maybe.
- high sats would need lasers to link to many (several?) low sats and many (several?) other router sats.
-the high sats would be relatively expensive. Maybe so much that it is not offset by the inexpensive low sats.
-things I haven’t thought of.


Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/19/2019 01:24 am
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/19/2019 03:31 am
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.
Sometimes Musk intentionally downplays things. Like the idea that the Supercharging network is a moat (it absolutely is, although not a permanent one).

Personally, I think the relationship makes more sense from a sales/marketing perspective. Tesla has stores everywhere and is a powerful consumer brand already. SpaceX only sells mugs and t-shirts (etc) to consumers.

Solar roof and Starlink terminal installed at the same time. Makes sense.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ninjaneer on 09/19/2019 04:14 am
Has there been any mention since the May media call of whether Starlink will be sold directly or resold through ISPs?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 09/19/2019 05:31 am
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.

Tesla is also selling solar systems for houses. Could be that satellite transceivers for houses is the synergy, not cars.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 09/19/2019 07:20 am
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.

But the gateways may be co-located with Tesla service and delivery centers, there are quite a few of these now and more are being opened all the time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 09/19/2019 07:26 am
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

Satellite connectivity does not work well in tunnels or underground parking. 5G and 4G will provide majority of connectivity, with just perhaps an optional package for StarLink for those who spend time away from civilization.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 09/19/2019 07:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/19/2019 01:00 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/19/2019 01:09 pm
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.


It also gives an opportunity to wire in operating and backup power without running through the inverter/rectifier mess.  Coms are a good thing to have during an outage.


Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/19/2019 07:15 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1174749757329199104

Quote
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


https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1174755098582323200

Quote
Goldstein: SpaceX has done 21 avoidance maneuvers autonomously among the Starlink satellites; all involved non-maneuverable objects. #AMOS20th
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RoboGoofers on 09/20/2019 02:15 am
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
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/20/2019 07:22 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/20/2019 12:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/20/2019 01:32 pm
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.

In other countries SpaceX may be required to partner with local companies.  If they're targeting the backhaul market then that won't be direct to end-users either.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: matthewkantar on 09/20/2019 01:58 pm
How would you describe the SSO-A launch then? Spaceflight resold the launch capacity if bought form SpaceX.

They have cut out the middle person there, they are now selling those types of rides directly.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 09/20/2019 02:26 pm
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
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 09/20/2019 02:31 pm

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

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/20/2019 02:39 pm
Retiring sats early also doesn't help them meet their deployment milestones.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 09/20/2019 02:53 pm
Internet returning in Bermuda following  #HurricaneHumberto. Live connectivity stats here: https://map.internetintel.oracle.com/?root=national&country=BM …

https://twitter.com/InternetIntel/status/1174987061725671424
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/20/2019 04:36 pm
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
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.
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.

If a customer sat only interconnect to isl/gateway sats they only need laser bandwidth equal to their customer bandwidth. For isl receive, bandwidth would depend on which end does the buffering. If the buffering is done on the big isl sat the customer sat becomes simpler, smaller, lighter and less expensive. The shorter lifetime due to lower orbits would be less of a hit.

ISL (geometric) routing also becomes simpler for the customer sats. With the architecture as it stands now a sat a sat can do isl forward or back within its plane or to either side at a range of angles to adjacent planes. With dedicated isl sats a customer sat only need pick an isl sat until the angle or distance causes problems. It then does a handoff to another. If the handoff logic is handled by the isl sat the customer sat becomes yet simpler.

The ground gateways become simpler in that they would beam form to fewer sats. In turn, each beam would have to carry greater bandwidth.

Each isl/gateway downlink sat would be bigger, heavier, more complex and more expensive. As an offset, they would be in the higher orbits and decay slower. The expense might justify more orbit keeping props.

Gongora (I think) said that system bandwidth would go down with dedicated gateway downlink without further explanation other than a terse listing of allocated bands and numbers that I assume to be the licensed portions of these bands. Full disclosure: I am not an RF engineer. Any explanation warmly welcome.

Assuming (maybe a bad assumption) that redistributing the gateway bandwidth will not impact total available bandwidth, and assuming there is no hole in my logic (not assured), ISTM that it becomes a question of total full up life cycle costs between the two architectures plus development costs.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ninjaneer on 09/20/2019 04:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/20/2019 04:49 pm
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
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.

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.
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.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 09/20/2019 07:33 pm
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 ... .
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/20/2019 09:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 09/21/2019 10:55 am
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.
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mlindner on 09/21/2019 02:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 09/21/2019 04:10 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mlindner on 09/21/2019 06:06 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 09/21/2019 06:12 pm
>
To be honest, I didn't know that either and I can't find it via google. Got a link?

Sept 3,

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mlindner on 09/21/2019 06:18 pm
>
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")

Nitpick, don't insert quotes into the URL when linking it... It just prevents you from clicking it. Just copy paste it and it works fine. A lot of people do this on this forum and I don't understand why.

https://twitter.com/Astro_Jonny/status/1168976820349415430
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 09/21/2019 06:31 pm
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.

There is a difference between selling to a wholesaler and having agents conduct sales on your behalf. I see no reason why SpaceX would turn down a customer simply because they were an ISP rather than an individual, corporation or other entity. It's likely to be much more cost-effective for a group of individuals (say in an isolated community) to contract with an ISP (if one is available) who have themselves contracted with SpaceX for long-distance communications than it is for them each to individually contract with SpaceX direct. It is also more likely to be cost-effective for SpaceX to have one larger customer than a number of small individual ones.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 09/21/2019 06:34 pm
Further,

https://spacenews.com/better-coordination-needed-among-operators-to-avoid-potential-collisions/

Quote
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.

However, the Space News article - like many others - missed something Germany's N-TV got

https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.n-tv.de%2Fwissen%2FEsa-Satellit-umfliegt-SpaceX-Satelliten-article21248848.html%3AC5OqYLrMWdGxRFfVSSMamxubP-c&cuid=3432148

(Google Translate)

Quote
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."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/21/2019 07:18 pm
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




Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: allins on 09/21/2019 10:32 pm
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.
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?
I'm guessing the CRTC would have to approve a new Internet provider?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 09/21/2019 11:06 pm
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 think this was already posted here somewhere,

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1174755098582323200
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: QuantumG on 09/21/2019 11:51 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 09/22/2019 12:02 am
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.
In regions like China, you're going to run into additional issues with regard to non-local  ownership of ISPs, for example, additionally to any firewall issues.

https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2017/01/02/investigatory-powers-act/ - for example (UK).

It may be that in some cases this can be done in software, if they can prove that they can do this to the satisfaction of the governments involved, other cases might require all traffic to go through a gateway in that country.

It's very much a country by country (and in some cases finer graduations) thing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: QuantumG on 09/22/2019 12:11 am
other cases might require all traffic to go through a gateway in that country.

Shadows of Iridium.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 09/23/2019 10:11 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/23/2019 04:16 pm
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.
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?

I don't know of any international barrier other than SpaceX will have to get approved for service in each territory, much as it has with the FCC in the US.  It appears that SpaceX is taking a US-first approach, perhaps because dealing with a single regulatory body for what is a rapidly-evolving constellation design is much easier.

OneWeb is taking the opposite approach by going international from the start and working with local operators.  It's an interesting contrast.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 09/24/2019 01:04 am
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

In the open world, dynamic meshes with mostly fixed gateway anchors have been largely demonstrated via 802.11s, and things like the BATMAN and ROBIN network routing protocols. Those ostensibly were oriented more towards weird local networks of wifi devices hopping to an internet gateway (think protesters being backhauled by some local coffeeshop wifi).

There are the various 802.15.4 derivative mesh networking setups,such as that used by ZigBee and Thread, though those are more IoT oriented and not heavily dynamic.

There are a number of vector distance based mesh routing protocols that may be more suited for Starlink (such as AODV), but they might also roll their own.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/24/2019 01:23 am
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.

On a set of 72 sats in a ring and an up down rf throughput per sat of 32gbit on these  V1 design, the total possible data traffic on any one link if all data is routed from a sat to some other sat to be as high as .5Tbit. But is likely to be much less. Until the rf link data throughput increases in the V2 heavier sat with 64 or even 256Gbit.

Because of aggregate loading even on a set of sats with 256Gbit throughput a 1Tbit link should work fine. Loading of 20% of the total rf capability of a set of sats is considered a high value and likely unreachable. Using a 2X of rf throughput for sizing of thr optical link should keep you from having significant packet traffic jams.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 09/25/2019 01:19 am
https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a28967312/women-changing-future/
Quote from: Gwynne Shotwell in Marie Claire - 25 Women Changing the future
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 09/28/2019 12:48 pm
Interesting new filing by SpaceX on first to launch issues for NGSO systems characterizing opponents as "Non-US Operators" whereas SpaceX is the "Truly American Operator". Clearly the intention is to simply ignore ITU priority in favor of "America first"

https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1177636294748278784
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 09/28/2019 12:48 pm
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..

https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1177655559639580677
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 10/01/2019 04:05 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/01/2019 06:54 pm
I mean this news may be interesting - 10 minutes ago I received mail:

Not sure if Leosat is completely dead yet, but they're struggling.  I made my reply in a different thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41647.msg2000288#msg2000288
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jak Kennedy on 10/01/2019 07:59 pm

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.

Here is a link to a youtube video re flexable joints starting with a titanium compound hinge for space solar panels and then for thrusters.

https://youtu.be/97t7Xj_iBv0?t=461
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 10/02/2019 07:47 am
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
1) Business  or Right to Sell Service/Make Business
  In Mostly countries you have to have  local company for it (some times plus special License) for it..
2) State Security - Police system for control traffic from local citizens . Theoretically provider can route traffic from its Gateway in USA to local Police ,  but  standard decision is local gateway . And all traffic from satellite which crossed in this time  territory this country must be routed via this local Gateway (see Iridium in Russia)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 10/02/2019 02:22 pm
In contrast to @OneWeb and @SpaceX @amazon's @FCC filings for #ProjectKuiper (📄 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/SATLOA2019070400057&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number …) so far only cover Ka band frequencies from 17.7-30.0GHz (see below table).

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1179400375314653184
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: watermod on 10/08/2019 02:05 pm
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LiamS on 10/11/2019 09:32 am
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/)

Quote
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."

I had a look at the link and it seems to check out. Starship development must be going better than expected.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 10/11/2019 09:35 am
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/)

Quote
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."

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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LiamS on 10/11/2019 09:40 am

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 10/11/2019 09:58 am

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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/11/2019 10:10 am

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...

And they have no case as long as SpaceX follows the rules.

NASA: We have just witnessed how SpaceX and NASA can work out their differences peacefully.

ESA: They have no skin in the game, despite their tweet. They got what, a single satellite in the neighborhood?

Other constellation providers: And what are they going to complaint about, SpaceX is too successful in reusability?

Astronomy organisations: SpaceX already have agreement in place with radio astronomers. And they're working with optical astronomers, I doubt they would have taken this action without mitigation in place.

Space debris prevention: These are low and very low LEO orbits where debris will decay quickly, it's better to have more satellites here than the 1,000km orbits.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: GWR64 on 10/11/2019 12:23 pm
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/)

Quote
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."

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 10/11/2019 12:26 pm
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/)

Quote
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."

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?

It's just approval for radio spectrum use, by a certain number of satellites in certain particular orbits. By international agreement, the ITU handles this.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: GWR64 on 10/11/2019 12:51 pm
Hmm, frequency rights globally (who comes first has the rights?), or for specific countries?
Collision risk is not rated? Also for the manned space flight.
If China want to start its own constellation with 100,000 LEO sats in another (free) frequency range, would they get the permission?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 10/11/2019 01:18 pm
This is not very many satellites.  Starship will hardly break a sweat.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/11/2019 02:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 10/11/2019 02:49 pm
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.

What are the error margins on these filings? At 5° and 10-20km between planes and thousands of satellites each, they're not far off having an effective worldwide monopoly on those frequencies. It's practically impossible to have another satellite at the same frequency not interfere.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 10/11/2019 04:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 10/11/2019 05:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 10/11/2019 05:34 pm
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.

Interesting that we are moving towards reusable rockets and expendable satellites. Complete reversal.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/11/2019 05:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 10/11/2019 06:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Cheapchips on 10/11/2019 07:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 10/11/2019 07:54 pm
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.

As technology change accelerates it will be easier to build new ones and let the old ones dispose on reentry. If the technology for low earth constellations advances and plateaus then letting them stay up longer will to be better.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/12/2019 04:09 am
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..

https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1177655559639580677
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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 10/12/2019 04:14 am
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...

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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/12/2019 04:57 am
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...

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?  :P  The Starlink flatpack stack is directly attached to the payload adapter.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/12/2019 05:38 am

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 10/12/2019 12:24 pm
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...

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 10/12/2019 12:49 pm
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...

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.
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.

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.
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!
This may not be pressing for SX in such a low orbit, but for the large constellations in higher orbits that decay more slowly it may well become a useful method in a few years, not so much for recycling, but for reliably clearing end of mission sats from earth orbit. Reserving propellant for manoeuvring to a "pick up orbit" may be a cost effectiveway to guarantee end of mission removal. Another use of SS!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 10/12/2019 01:09 pm
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.
   
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jcc on 10/12/2019 01:44 pm
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.
 

Combined use would be rough, Starlink generates a lot of radio signal, and LEO is not ideal for a radio telescope. But a cheap dedicated radio telescope satellite that can be produced and launched to high orbit in large numbers would be interesting.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/12/2019 01:56 pm
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...

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.
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.

A better analog may be companies replacing their laptops and desktops after a few years. Although the replaced hardware don't usually get incinerated, they end up on ebay or other places where they can continue to contribute value. Not sure if 2nd hand Starlink would work though, given the proprietary nature and liability involved.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/12/2019 03:01 pm
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.
 

If you want to discuss this please make a separate thread for it.  It really doesn't have anything to do with the current Starlink constellation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: matthewkantar on 10/12/2019 03:37 pm

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/12/2019 04:11 pm

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/12/2019 07:46 pm

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.

They all have RCS signatures of between 1 square meter and .1 square meters. So,it would be consistent with a 10 meter long .1 meter wide beam. The rings alone wouldn't be in that size range.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 10/12/2019 09:28 pm
//On October 7th, the FCC made 20 new, independent filings on behalf of SpaceX. They comprise 30,000 new satellites...
I mean its mostly frequency coordination  question in future negotions between Space X  and/or  OneWEb /TeleSat, who have FCC license for USA market and Nothing with really launch  this sats..

ITU will send this files to other member  some of them (Gonduras or Costa Rica who don`t have own LEO constellation)  will say  YES!!! (and Starlink can use its frequency in those country) , but  another ( for example Russia or China)   will say definitiv NO..
and under Russian  or China`s territory   Space X  has to switch off  all transmitters  on Starlink`s sats 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 10/13/2019 08:06 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 10/13/2019 08:46 pm
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

-----------------------
That would be his opinion...mine differs.

A cost effective consumer interface is the challenge and I have confidence in their abilities.

They are not throwing stuff into orbit on a whim...they have an evolving plan and I'll wait it out with patience.

just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/13/2019 09:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/13/2019 11:12 pm
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.

They do seem to be Ku/Ka.  SpaceX has suggested the FCC start another processing round for Kuiper (and OneWeb's modification to increase their constellation size).  I wonder if when another processing round does get started, whether SpaceX will try to add Ku/Ka to their VLEO sats, much like they added V-band to their original 4000 Ku/Ka-band sats.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/16/2019 05:15 am
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.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: CJ on 10/16/2019 05:30 am
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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 10/16/2019 06:29 am
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.

I'm not sure if this is a high bid to make what they'll settle for/really want more palatable to ITU, if its to warn off big talkers who don't  frequencies or real hardware yet, or both.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 10/16/2019 06:42 am
Jeez, at this rate how long before Elon brings back the white kitty, puts on a grey suit, raises his pinky finger and says

"1 MILLION satellites..."

while pressuring the ITU?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Cheapchips on 10/16/2019 08:10 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 10/16/2019 08:29 am
It's always fun to see "broken telephone" in action.



The technological difficulties  in building ground infrastructure are are a priori easier manageable and are much easier to solve than space tech. And yes, it's very easy to notice that SpaceX do collect necessary people and do develop all necessary parts of the ground infrastructure starting with terminals/software and ending with financial/administrative management appendix.

The "deadly" challenges to build ground infrastructure lie primarily in the regulatory realm.

I don't believe China, Russia, India, Brasil will allow use of spacelink terminals without constructing some regional corporations to control traffic and be involved in financial flows.
Hence "USA FIRST."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/16/2019 11:54 am
In other news:

https://twitter.com/Astro_Jonny/status/1184422813001768960

Does this really help to reduce the optical magnitude and flares at all?  :-\
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Cheapchips on 10/16/2019 12:33 pm
In other news:

https://twitter.com/Astro_Jonny/status/1184422813001768960

Does this really help to reduce the optical magnitude and flares at all?  :-\

Well, there's always Vantablack, if that's hardy enough for space.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 10/16/2019 02:22 pm
To lessen the startlink magnitude:
Paint the earth facing black.
The solar panels should always be facing the sun so should not be a problem. The narrow band where the earth is in shadow and the satellites are in the sun, you just have to be careful and make sure the panels are "aimed" away from earth at a slight angle for their reflection.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/16/2019 03:13 pm
In other news:

https://twitter.com/Astro_Jonny/status/1184422813001768960

Does this really help to reduce the optical magnitude and flares at all?  :-\

We'll know in a month, won't we...

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?

The first two seem to be big ones. Also more satellites means it's easier for a user on the ground to lock on to a satellite with a favorable angle.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 10/16/2019 03:29 pm
In other news:

https://twitter.com/Astro_Jonny/status/1184422813001768960

Does this really help to reduce the optical magnitude and flares at all?  :-\

If by "bottom" they mean "all surfaces with a view of Earth", then yes, but that sounds pretty hard.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Yggdrasill on 10/16/2019 06:21 pm
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 10/16/2019 06:46 pm
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?
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ludus on 10/16/2019 07:03 pm
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?

The current design is intended to deploy on F9 and is pretty near the limits of their capabilities to launch a working constellation at this size. Once they transition to Starship they can apply what they’ve learned as well as just scaling up the size of satellites. As long as they keep them backward compatible they can start that any time they’re ready.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 10/16/2019 07:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 10/16/2019 07:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 10/16/2019 11:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/17/2019 12:16 am

When Starship is launching them they could easily have the mass budget to have a black fold-out sail/umbrella/etc to shield it.

That would drastically increase the coefficient of drag, reduce operational lifetimes of each satellite and ultimately drive up operational costs of the constellation with reduced per-vehicle operational lifetimes.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/17/2019 12:34 am
 What does the non working side of the solar panels look like?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZChris13 on 10/17/2019 02:12 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/17/2019 03:10 am
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.
 One way to keep the panel from collecting heat when you don't need to push electrons is keeping it edge on. The other way is to make the back side really reflective. Look at the ISS panels.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Norm38 on 10/17/2019 03:47 am
On painting satellites black:   The DOD already knows, but they're not going to tell you.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/17/2019 04:11 am
Two points.

First, is the render above showing a deployed panel or a deploying panel? I understand that they are getting higher off axis efficiencies these days but if extending the panel dead flat or close to it will fix the problem, then fix the problem.

Second, every photon that reflects off the panel is a wasted photon. Optical coatings are fully capable of damping reflections quite a bit.

Unfortunately coatings are expensive so COTS might not be the way to go. On the upside coatings mass nothing and by increasing efficiency they drop the panel size and mass. Drag goes down too so maybe less prop mass for station keeping. Maybe, just maybe, they can squeeze a couple more birds on an F9.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/17/2019 05:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 10/17/2019 07:30 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/17/2019 02:20 pm
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.

Actually I'm not ok with that.  You don't need additional slots filed for replacements.  If you think these have anything to do with replacements you need to state why you think that is so.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/17/2019 03:20 pm
ITU filings are for payloads (not necessarily individual satellites) transmitting at particular frequencies in particular orbits.  SpaceX keeps changing their orbits, and has applied for payloads in different frequency ranges, so these 30,000 could include new parameters and frequencies for the previously filed 12,000 satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: fl1034 on 10/18/2019 03:51 am
It's been quite a while since Falcon 9's last mission. When's the next batch of Starlink coming?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 10/18/2019 04:49 am
SpaceFlightNow has 4 StarLink launches with "TBD" NETs between now and the end of December.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Comga on 10/20/2019 04:59 am
SpaceFlightNow has 4 StarLink launches with "TBD" NETs between now and the end of December.

During the same period some people are also expecting Santa Claus.

There was a statement that there could be two more Starlink launches after the October 17 and November 4 Starlink launches. We know those are not happening. The SFN info is likely just that the launches will probably happen but not start this month.
There are remarkably few launches with scheduled dates.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/22/2019 06:05 am
twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1186523464712146944

Quote
Sending this tweet through space via Starlink satellite 🛰

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1186524008621043713

Quote
Whoa, it worked!!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sferrin on 10/22/2019 10:50 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: watermod on 10/23/2019 02:21 am
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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sferrin on 10/23/2019 10:08 am
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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisC on 10/23/2019 12:40 pm
Very interesting comment from watermod, but can this thread stay focused on this flight?  Surely there is another thread where Starlink topology has been / is being discussed, maybe even CALEA compliance.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: pippin on 10/23/2019 12:41 pm
Doesn’t CALEA only apply to calls (even if they are VoIP), not other data traffic?
Are WhatsApp, FB etc. calls currently compliant?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: yokem55 on 10/23/2019 01:22 pm
My personal experience (small clec/isp noc guy) with Calea is that it is only applicable to voice traffic interacting with the pstn, and then only with a valid warrant (company policy). That said if a warrant is dropped in our laps, there needs to be infrastructure in place, ready to go immediately, for the calls of the warrant target to be monitored by the applicable law enforcement agency.

So different companies can implement this immediate availability in different ways. Some might just keep packet captures of everything voice related for a short period of time, long enough for law enforcement to get the right stuff. Others (ours) is to build the infrastructure to generate those targeted, narrow, captures on demand.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 10/23/2019 04:43 pm
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.)
As mentioned above, this is not mission specific, so it belongs in the general Starlink discussion thread but this is important to say:

What watermod described is completely unconstitutional. It is not even close to what is required by the law referenced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act which just requires wiretapping of specific people with a warrant to be possible.

@watermod: If you actually have experience with what you described please talk to appropriate authorities and provide any evidence you have of this gross wrongdoing. I recommend starting by talking to the Electronic Frontier Foundation  (EFF) which is a nonprofit which exists specifically to investigate and seek justice in exactly this kind of situation.

Also:
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tulse on 10/23/2019 05:36 pm
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):

"The Air Force is using SpaceX's fledgling satellite network to test encrypted internet services for a number of military planes, the space company's president said on Tuesday, detailing results for the first customer of Elon Musk's planned constellation of thousands of broadband-beaming satellites."
[...]
"The Air Force program, known as Global Lightning, started testing with SpaceX in early 2018 and used Starlink's first two test satellites to beam to terminals fixed to a C-12 military transport plane in flight, demonstrating internet speeds of 610 megabits per-second, SpaceX Senior Vice President Tim Hughes said. That's fast enough to download a movie in under a minute."
[...]
"Shotwell said the program, part of a $28 million Pentagon contract awarded to SpaceX in late 2018, is ongoing and expects to test Starlink with "a number" of additional military aircraft types. That contract also includes testing communications between satellites in orbit."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/23/2019 05:46 pm
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):

We knew they had military contracts to test Starlink, not sure how far back in the thread that would be.  Some of these details are new.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 10/23/2019 11:09 pm
SpaceX plans to launch more than 1,000 Starlink satellites by the end of 2020, and the service already seems to be partially working after a tweet by Musk via Starlink.

https://twitter.com/Astro_Jonny/status/1186973017227825152
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/25/2019 04:17 pm
Quite a lot on Starlink in this:

https://twitter.com/bluemoondance74/status/1187752868939468801

Quote
.@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.

Couple of Starlink quotes:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1187747359452729346

Quote
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."

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1187748549313941507

Quote
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."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 10/25/2019 07:23 pm
How many Starlink satellites are they manufacturing a month/week?  Is this what is holding up the launches?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: biosehnsucht on 10/25/2019 08:17 pm
Seems to me the obvious solution to CALEA is to not natively support voice calls or the termination thereof, and just let end users use whatever VoIP provider they want and thus make that the VoIP provider's problem on their end.

Being a pure IP data as data only carrier with no special handling to convert to/from PSTN/etc would mean CALEA doesn't apply directly but only to the service on other other end of a VoIP stream, so shouldn't impact Starlink efficiency.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 10/26/2019 02:10 am
Michael Sheetz ✔ @thesheetztweetz
Replying to @thesheetztweetz
Shotwell: Next year we're going to be 60 Starlink satellites "every other week."

"Once we get to 1200 satellites we will have coverage of the whole globe."
|
Michael Sheetz ✔ @thesheetztweetz
Baron: How many satellites do we have right now?

Shotwell: About 1500.


https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1187746742449721345
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aero on 10/26/2019 02:35 am
Clarify, is that 1500 satellites on orbit now?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/26/2019 03:00 am
Clarify, is that 1500 satellites on orbit now?

She meant there're currently ~1500 active satellites in orbit, launched by everybody/humanity. @thesheetztweetz clarified this on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/dmzp2q/thesheetztweetz_on_twitter_full_house_at_the/f578xzn/):

Quote
Not Starlink, satellites in general.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/26/2019 03:06 am
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.

Would they be able to squeeze in some more payload by launching to such a low orbit?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 10/27/2019 01:04 am
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.
>
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 10/27/2019 07:35 am
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.
>

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: geza on 10/27/2019 09:01 am
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.

It is probably a very difficult development. Good to have the confimation that it is still in the pipe. I am sure that Elon wants broadband connection for the very first Mars landing envisaged for '22 - which is already the next level of development.

Is there a serious discussion on the technicalities on the laser links somewhere?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 10/27/2019 10:17 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 10/27/2019 06:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 10/27/2019 06:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mondagun on 10/27/2019 06:42 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/27/2019 06:59 pm
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.

PR, especially in an environment with an ever increasing population of luddites, is important. With 30,000 sat and a five year lifetime, once the pipeline of decaying sats is filled this averages out to 16+ sats a day thundering down out of the sky. Pardon the hyperbole.

If each has one or two bits that make it down you become an open target. It doesn’t matter what else is raining down. If somebody gets clocked the problems go exponential. Low probability, high consequences.

Even with only a small initial deployment of reentry survivors someone will make the extrapolation and explaining the real plan will be seen by some as damage control.

Musk wants to stand on both the moral and PR high ground. Isn’t that a bit refreshing?

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/27/2019 07:36 pm
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 keep wondering if they're going to deploy ground-bounce relay stations, or even if they're going to have user terminals do double duty as relays.

Obviously you can reach a whole bunch of people in remote areas and bent-pipe their traffic to somewhere within the spot that has terrestrial internet edge access.  But that's not going to be true everywhere, and it's especially not true for intercontinental aircraft and maritime applications.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 10/27/2019 08:13 pm
...
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 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/27/2019 08:19 pm
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.

CALEA has applied to ISPs and VoIP service providers for over 15 years now.  I've forgotten the architectural details, but the intercept points don't have to be in central offices any more.  They do still have to format the data and throw it over the wall to the the intercepting authority, to prevent law enforcement from monkeying directly with the bearer channels and obtaining unwarranted data (although the stuff that Snowden leaked seems to indicate that numerous federal agencies have made a mockery of that restriction).

AFAIK, SpaceX isn't planning on marketing its own VoIP or text service; other service providers will use Starlink over the top, just like any other routing fabric.  Most, but not all, VoIP providers have some sort of call agent in the signaling path, and can divert the flow to a bridge or packet-cloner to do the lawful intercept.

In general, it's very hard to intercept an internet communications service that uses some squirrelly protocol and doesn't have a centralized signaling service.  But there's no functional difference in that case between a terrestrial router and one that happens to be lounging about in LEO.  Starlink's just another set of routers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/27/2019 08:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/27/2019 09:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 10/27/2019 10:03 pm
.@SpaceX's Shotwell boldly claims #Starlink would have 17 times higher spectral efficiency over @OneWeb:
"Our competitors are largely these new entrants to the market. OneWeb? We are 17 times better per bit,"

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1188551135558324231
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 10/28/2019 12:56 am
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 10/28/2019 03:13 am
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.
>
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/28/2019 04:03 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/28/2019 04:20 am
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 10/28/2019 04:26 am


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.

Yes.   Good point.   To provide services to ocean crossing ships and planes is going to realistically require (I suspect) intra-satellite links.   

I suppose domestic airlines would workout pretty well, as an initial customer.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TripleSeven on 10/28/2019 04:33 am
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... :)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Cheapchips on 10/28/2019 10:16 am
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.
>

If they achieve the <$10m launch cost they're expecting for SS then that's under a billion to launch the entire constellation.   Morgan Stanley's estimate is $60bn.  “They were way off,” Shotwell said.  ;D

It'd be nice to know how low they can go on satellite manufacturing costs.

Also, 400 sats per launch puts their replacement flights at around 20 a year, based on 5 yr satellite lifespan. 


 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 10/28/2019 12:21 pm
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?
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/spacex-claims-to-have-redesigned-its-starlink-satellites-to-eliminate-casualty-risks

Quote
...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.....
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 10/28/2019 12:34 pm
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.
What part?
Elon decision? Being cornered by FCC and his legal advisers (costs of the insurance better said) he had asked if it's possible to eliminate hard to burn parts. Since the answer was yes, the command was "do it now". It is SpaceX after all, not Boeing.

"Concerned citizens" were true as well. beside very "concerned" letters from Oneweb and their buddies there was also "public" outcry not fundamentally different from the "OMG death to the free sky" outcry some months later. Considering very precisely directed outrage no less ridiculous as well.
3 months ago? The very relevant open job positions were closed in august.
They have intended to use out-of shelf solution. Absence of any relevant work force was direct give away.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 10/28/2019 12:57 pm
“the satellites can end up through the ground talking to each other” implies no crosslinks in the first 400 or even 1200 satellites (unsurprisingly since a major physical redesign would be needed)

https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1188630459770523648
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: flyright on 10/28/2019 01:04 pm
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... :)

Perhaps I missed this in a previous post, but where is "here" (the location of the test system)?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 10/28/2019 01:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/28/2019 01:56 pm
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.

In the US at least those elevations were for all ground stations.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 10/28/2019 05:26 pm
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.
FCC insisted twice on the recalculation of the risks and to study ways of their reduction.
The article I've linked was describing exactly last such instance.
 Starlink application was delayed (at least ones) as a result of not accepting specifically risk calculations.

The risks are coupled with the insurance costs (per satellite btw).

Quote
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).

 P.S. SpaceX is actually quite accurate with job postings. they get too many applicants for every of them.
I won't go into "insider thing". It's beyond silly. Everything I post is speculations.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 10/28/2019 07:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 10/29/2019 06:45 pm
SpaceX takes 'prerequisite' step for Starlink Aussie approval

New satellite broadband service asks for regulatory permission.

By Ry Crozier Oct 29 2019 5:55AM

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/spacex-takes-prerequisite-step-for-starlink-aussie-approval-533089
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/29/2019 07:22 pm
Where is SpaceX wrt the ITU stuff needed to operate over international territory?  There are an awful lot of aircraft and maritime applications that happen over water.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 10/29/2019 10:47 pm
Meanwhile @OneWeb through its subsidiary "Network Access Associates Ltd (incorporated in the United Kingdom)" has been included in Australia's "Foreign Space Objects Determination" two years ago for which a separate consultation was held in August 2017:

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1189277907362996226
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 10/31/2019 03:52 pm
Starlink orbit status. Around Oct 27, object 44240 (Starlink 26, in cyan) was lowered slightly out of the active constellation. Still no satellites deorbited: all 60 still being tracked. (Blue: Main constell; Red: satellites not in main constell;  Green: debris)

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1189928526478282752
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 11/03/2019 06:11 pm
Starlink is a very big deal!

CASEY HANDMER'S BLOG  NOVEMBER 2, 2019 CJHANDMER

https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/11/02/starlink-is-a-very-big-deal/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 11/03/2019 08:30 pm
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.
It would be very nice to see some (any) posts with insider information about Starlink....
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.
 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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 11/03/2019 09:18 pm
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.
It would be very nice to see some (any) posts with insider information about Starlink....
Just as well it would be nice to make some reflections about what, how and when comes  out.
L2 is the most likely place to find any insider updates on Starlink.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TorenAltair on 11/08/2019 01:25 am
New FCC decision
https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-STA-20190924-00098

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 11/08/2019 03:10 am
SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet was tested by the US Air Force and the results are in..

By Jamie Groh Posted on November 7, 2019

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-us-air-force-testing/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Star One on 11/08/2019 01:49 pm
https://youtu.be/KENaDXdm1sg
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/09/2019 02:18 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/09/2019 03:17 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TripleSeven on 11/09/2019 07:10 am
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.

and I think a really good opinion...I would offer this in comment and addition

one big customer you left out is the US military (and maybe militaries all over the world) .  The US military of all branches, including the USCG (not technically a military service now) is running test on the system as it is right now.  and from what I hear the results have really been quite positive.  The military was one of the things that helped Iridium at least survive and now prosper and they see Starlink as a nice transition from that for faster speeds...

I think the airline market is potentially big.  Airlines on long haul use the internet as a form of entertainment for people stuck in tubes for about half a day...anything that increased use, particularly when they can levy a sircharge in economy would be something that they would be interested in.

but for that very same reason I am curious as to how cruise ships will react to this.  everything you say about the cost of using the net on a ship is true...but really what they want you to do is to spend the time and money in their entertainment venues.  and I cannot imagine that anyone who is on a cruise ship, would spend a lot of time surfing the net for entertainment.  but I agree it probably will replace what is there now...and the cruise lines would make a sir charge on it

I will be very curious to see how it goes replacing land line subscribers.  I at first was skeptical...now am a little less skeptical...but it all depends on the price at least for me (and the antenna requirements for others) and the ultimate performance.  What Ihave seen of the military experiments has been well impressive.   but the antenna installation right now is non trivial...and you dont know how foreign governments are going to react to this.

another issue in the states is going to be how cable "services" are bundled...

but again so far what I have seen first hand...is impressive
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: philw1776 on 11/09/2019 12:30 pm
Spend time on cruise social media.  #1 complaint on high end cruises (internet included in fare) is too slow internet.  Folks just love posting their photos and feel out of touch without their net fix.  Me, I enjoy the cruise and just read my email but the market is there.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: BZHSpace on 11/09/2019 12:34 pm
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 ?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: butters on 11/09/2019 01:24 pm
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 don't see any reason for Starlink to diverge from the typical Elon strategy of accepting refundable deposits to reserve spots on the waiting list. The system is going to be supply-limited in the near term, if not by the capacity of the constellation than by the production rate for the user terminals. There will be excess demand, and customers will wait in line to get their terminal.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JBF on 11/09/2019 01:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZChris13 on 11/09/2019 01:28 pm
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 ?
As Starlink exists now?
No
As Starlink is publicly planned to exist in the future?
Almost
As Starlink could be potentially modified to exist?
Certainly.

My thoughts:
Delivery is nontrivial, but sounds doable. I'm sure there's a thread on this full of all sorts of amazing schemes.
Power supply is decreased per mass because of reduced insolation, which has cascading effects that make it just a little bit less amazing. But with Gwynne's recent statement on a notional four hundred Starlink satellites per Starship launch, I'm sure they can absorb some serious weight gain before they run into difficulties deploying them all.
One thing that will absolutely be needed is the laser links: their purpose is a global internet backbone, and with limited useful ground infrastructure that's the most important element for Mars.
The last big point of interest is the link back to Terra. This could fill a whole thread on its own, and my personal pet thought is big laser link telescopes. The exact details escape me but I have many questions. Point me towards a better thread and I would love to hash it out.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Swedish chef on 11/09/2019 03:02 pm
The exact details escape me but I have many questions. Point me towards a better thread and I would love to hash it out.

Perhaps this thread? (SpX Mars Communication Constellation?)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45483.0
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/09/2019 07:00 pm
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.

Given how outraged so many are with local monopoly ISP’s taking a customer service page from THE PHONE COMPANY, it shouldn’t be that hard a sell.

I’m posting from a coffee shop with WIFI. Offer coffee shops and like locations a good up front deal and require a small poster and handouts and word of mouth will take off. Do some sort of freebie or low cost service to schools and libraries and the instant gratification of word of mouth won’t happen but a deeper appreciation will grow.

Just don’t let it become THE PHONE COMPANY and it will grow quickly.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/09/2019 07:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 11/09/2019 08:01 pm
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.

Solar City got rolled into Tesla a couple years ago as I recall.  The Tesla 'Power Wall' was originally to be a Solar City product.

As to Starlink, they'll probably roll it out first as a link to Tesla cars (for updates and such) then start marketing it as a consumer service.  This will enable them to debug operations in a live environment before making paying customers mad.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/09/2019 09:24 pm
Starlink user terminals are not suitable for a direct connection to Tesla cars.  Maybe sometime down the road, SpaceX will do the development work necessary to make such a connection.  In the meantime, there's opportunity to connect superchargers and service centers, and the like.  But the opportunity is not huge.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 11/09/2019 11:44 pm
Possible customers:
Hotels/motels, especially rural ones.
Rural homes
Coffee shops
restaurants
Malls
Small phone companies
Apartment buildings/complexes
Office buildings
manufacturing plants
remote cameras
any corporation's remote facilities
Obviously aircraft and cruise ships.
Intercity coaches.
Truckers for mandated down time.
RVers, especially full timers.

On rural homes. I actually have great service from my rural phone company. I have fiber to the farm, and can watch 2 4K video streams over it with the base package. 10 miles east of me, nope. Only choices are satellite services for nearly twice as much. The only reason I have such good service is my phone company got federal grants to put it in.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/10/2019 12:15 am
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 ?

This has been discussed many times.

My personal take is that it is a no brainer but...

The first crewed landing will have to concentrate on immediate survival infrastructure. There may be preliminary exploration away from the main base but again only opinion, nothing more than a few days away.

The second and subsequent missions will range further, but probably all within the hemisphere. A single Aresynchronis sat is (I think) the easiest and least resource intensive solution for basic comms and instrumentation. This will do for at least three synods. If you have a heavy gaming habit early Mars is probably not a good idea.

There will be a constellation in its turn. More pressing will be high bandwidth Mars-Earth comms even when Earth is hidden by the sun.

Phil

Edit to add: on rethink, requirements for mars orbit are very different than an areobrake landing. IIUC it might actually takes more fuel, but one large synchronous sat would surely be an underwhelming load. There could be a passle of starlinks too.

I think SS is supposed to carry 400 starlinks. If the big sat makes up half the load and the starlinks need to be more robust (for many reasons) there might still be 150 delivered. Adjust numbers as required.

They will need orbits very different than the big sat. I am not capable of running the numbers. Maybe the SS would still have enough dV to deliver, maybe the sats own on board thrusters could get them there.

If run at earth altitudes the coverage would suck but there is no Van Allen belt so they can be higher. It’s not like they’ll have all that many customers.

So why run the big sat at all? Belt & suspenders. Once more starlinks are on line it’s redundant.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: high road on 11/10/2019 10:15 am

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 11/10/2019 01:18 pm

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/10/2019 02:19 pm

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.

We have a separate thread for discussion of spotting the satellites:
Starlink Satellite Spotting (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47030.0)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: high road on 11/10/2019 02:24 pm
Thx.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sevenperforce on 11/11/2019 03:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: eriblo on 11/11/2019 03:40 pm
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sevenperforce on 11/11/2019 04:06 pm
Anyone know how they plan to unload the reaction control wheels?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 11/11/2019 04:08 pm
Anyone know how they plan to unload the reaction control wheels?

Hall thrusters with krypton
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sevenperforce on 11/11/2019 04:12 pm
Anyone know how they plan to unload the reaction control wheels?

Hall thrusters with krypton
Ah, I didn't realize they had enough of them.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: eriblo on 11/11/2019 05:54 pm
Anyone know how they plan to unload the reaction control wheels?

Hall thrusters with krypton
Ah, I didn't realize they had enough of them.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132906066423889920
Tweet contents: Q: Do the #Starlink solar panels rotate or are they fixed?
Are these moment control gyros and, if so, how do you desaturate them?
Elon: Rotate on one axis. Magnetic torque rods for desaturation of momentum wheels.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 11/11/2019 11:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RoboGoofers on 11/12/2019 04:25 pm
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)? remove the aluminum structure, batteries, reaction wheels, thrusters and solar panels and a rough guess would be there's about 50-100 kg of network hardware and antennas so certainly not a major burden to a passenger airplane.

That would help with not having the ISL yet (though they'll be on there long before there's a airline ready to deploy starlink hardware on planes)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 11/12/2019 04:35 pm
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)?

Sure that would work for testing.  The ISL's are suppose to be operational next year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 11/12/2019 04:43 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/12/2019 05:00 pm
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?

Why not composite? Cost. Why no "sail"? That would be another thing that needs to deploy, needs power, etc. so Complexity. Also - Weight. Both of which feed into Cost.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: deadman719 on 11/12/2019 10:23 pm
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.

One of the rods can be seen in the attached screen shot captured from the webcast.

Respectfully,
Rob
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/13/2019 03:22 am
SpaceX's next Starlink launch will make it one of the top satellite operators in the world (https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2019/11/08/spacex-next-starlink-launch-make-one-top-satellite-operators-cape-canaveral-florida/2530064001/)

Note this refers to the launch that just happened.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/13/2019 03:27 am
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

Seems LeoSat is gone now: Satellite broadband constellation startup LeoSat ends hunt for investors, shuts down; Thales Ka-band ITU filing at risk (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/satellite-broadband-constellation-startup-leosat-ends-hunt-for-investors-shuts-down-thales-ka-band-itu-filing-at-risk/)

The article is behind a paywall, only the following excerpt is available:

Quote
Credit: LeoSat PARIS — Startup satellite broadband B2B provider LeoSat has suspended operations — which in recent months has mainly consisted of looking for investors — and
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 11/14/2019 01:00 am
With all of the news recently about C band alliance (Intelsat, SES and Telesat) having to share their C band spectrum with 5G mobile providers, it got me to wondering why Ku band spectrum is free for satellite providers, but spectrum for cell phone providers is auctioned and they have to pay crazy amounts of money for it.

Can someone explain it to me as if I am 5th grader?

From reading the articles about it, the C band alliance of satellite companies (Intelsat, SES and Telesat) didn't have to pay for the C band spectrum that they have been using for decades. But now that the writing is on the wall that they have to share that spectrum, at least in the USA region, they want to manage the auction and keep 80% of the money, only giving 20% to the US government.

All of their stocks tanked today by huge amounts, based I think upon the realization of the stock market that the US government is probably not going to let them keep the money from the auction.

Why doesn't anyone have to pay for the rights to the Ku spectrum that most satellites use? Why aren't SpaceX and OneWeb bidding for the spectrum they want? I am sure it would be insanely complex since it is spectrum technically covering every country on the planet. But that has never stopped countries from doing a tax grab in the past.

My understanding of all of this is at a very basic level, meaning I just read SpaceNews and a few other articles about the topics. But none of them dive into the details explaining this.

Thanks in advance for any explanations.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 11/16/2019 05:14 pm
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!

https://twitter.com/cgbassa/status/1195754992797454336
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/16/2019 05:16 pm
Edit: ninja’d! Whole thread is worth a read

Sorry, not up to date with this thread - so apologies if this is old news

https://twitter.com/cgbassa/status/1195754992797454336

Quote
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?

twitter.com/cgbassa/status/1195755002121408513

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/cgbassa/status/1195755004034002946

Quote
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.

twitter.com/cgbassa/status/1195755005363572739

Quote
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/…

https://twitter.com/cgbassa/status/1195755006936453123

Quote
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?

https://twitter.com/cgbassa/status/1195755008320573446

Quote
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?)

https://twitter.com/cgbassa/status/1195755009583067138

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 11/16/2019 05:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/16/2019 05:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 11/16/2019 10:01 pm
I'd be leery of this analysis until there's more info available about the data used to indicate some kind of rendezvous, intentional or otherwise. Unless the satellite vehicles were observed in real-time or actively-tracked via Doppler or something, inferring orbital precise orbital maneuvers using public TLEs is fraught; TLEs aren't always updated in a timely manner; they've always got some degree of uncertainty or error bands even for non-maneuvering vehicles; and with dozens of separate objects being tracked, some sets of data will be more accurate than other from day to day and vehicle to vehicle.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/16/2019 10:52 pm
I am reading "Eccentric Orbits:  The Iridium Story."  Very interesting and topical.  It has a lot of stuff -- mainly business and marketing -- that's applicable to Starlink.

SpaceX's approach is almost opposite of the original Iridium.

1.  Starlink is first being rolled out in the "easy" regulatory geographies, whereas Iridium had a worldwide release.
2.  SpaceX is spending zero on marketing and advertising, whereas Iridium spent hundreds of millions of dollars.
3.  SpaceX is avoiding business entanglements where possible, whereas Iridium sought them out in order to get regulatory buy-in from other countries.
4.  Starlink is owned 100% by SpaceX whereas Iridium was publicly-traded as a separate entity to Motorola.
5.  Starlink does not have to do contortions to enrich the parent company, whereas Iridium had a huge monthly service contract with Motorola.
6.  Starlink is being funded almost entirely by equity, whereas Iridium was majority funded by debt.
7.  Starlink investment is being done in stages, whereas Iridium was a single shot.

It seems that OneWeb is falling into some of the same traps as Iridium, and that's why you're seeing lawsuits and the like.  Perhaps Softbank's continued investment has pulled them back from doing too much of that.  It's apparent that for a few years, OneWeb was having difficulty raising capital, but maybe that has changed.

But even though SpaceX is not falling into the same traps, perhaps it is falling into others that we don't know about.  This is just a challenging business.  For instance, I wonder whether Starlink will ever be introduced into some parts of Europe for reasons unrelated to technological fitness.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 11/16/2019 11:10 pm
>
 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..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/16/2019 11:21 pm
>
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/16/2019 11:26 pm
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.

Megabit to terabit is a pretty big jump...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/16/2019 11:27 pm
Oops.  Yes, I will correct!  :D
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 11/16/2019 11:44 pm
>
 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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/17/2019 07:34 pm
twitter.com/harrystoltz1/status/1196137767673069568

Quote
Great visualization of #Starlink’s new orbits!

https://twitter.com/harrystoltz1/status/1196137767673069568

Quote
Animation: reddit.com/r/Starlink/com…
Check it out for yourself: celestrak.com/cesium/orbit-v…
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 11/17/2019 08:57 pm
Graph from r/starlink:

(https://i.imgur.com/ObTMTIz.png)

The satellites might reach their final orbit within a month.

Great to see the debris seems to be coming down around 0.5km/day. That might mean full reentry within a few months. Incredible how much stronger the atmosphere is at that altitude compared to the last Starlink launch. Definitely a big improvement and an example other constellations should follow.

Fun fact: The debris is coming down at literally a snails pace right now.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/18/2019 04:03 pm
For discussion about the impact of satellites on astronomy we are using the following thread:
Impacts of Large Satellite Constellations on Astronomy (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48302.0)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Texsun on 11/21/2019 04:45 pm

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 11/21/2019 04:50 pm

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nibb31 on 11/21/2019 06:04 pm

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sferrin on 11/21/2019 06:18 pm

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 11/21/2019 06:20 pm

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.
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.

You forgot remote locations in the CONUS.
Anybody know how big that is?
I know personally of 2 people with that need.
Southwest NH
Chico TX
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Texsun on 11/21/2019 06:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 11/21/2019 07:10 pm

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.

But they can launch enough of StarLink to get revenue positive using Falcon 9.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/21/2019 07:16 pm

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nibb31 on 11/21/2019 07:24 pm

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Texsun on 11/21/2019 07:52 pm
All US operators are investing heavily in 5G deployment as we speak.

SpaceX can put 60 new satellites into LEO in less than an hour. Deployed to their orbits in a week or so. I've been waiting for any Cell phone company to provide me uninterrupted phone service in the 25 minute drive between home and work for decades.

5G deployment will be focused on upgrading existing infrastructure for customers in urban areas. That leaves a tremendous opportunity for Starlink to reap more than enough of the gravy spilling off the plate by providing Internet services to those areas the phone/internet companies won't invest in infrastructure at all.

The military and government contracts, as well as the rest of the world currently without affordable Internet access will offer enough gravy to smother the meat and potatoes that are the Starship Projects (9m, 18m, etc.).

This economy of scale provides a huge potential income without having to take any existing customer's business from the most significant providers. (though I suspect that it could)

7.7 billion on the planet. Let's lowball it and say 10% are "rural." Let's lowball once more and say 10% of those subscribe to Starlink. After expenses, let's lowball it again and say that each of these subscribers only generate $1/month profit for SpaceX. These are all very conservative numbers. This results in about 1 Billion per year. If they make $2/mo/customer, that's 2 Billion per year.

Moon and Mars colonization could be primarily funded by the rural populations of planet Earth coming online.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mwfair on 11/21/2019 08:00 pm
All US operators are investing heavily in 5G deployment as we speak.
OT. 
edit: removed snark
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/21/2019 08:36 pm
Carve-over from Texas Prototype Discussion

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).

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 11/21/2019 08:45 pm
Carve-over from Texas Prototype Discussion

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).

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.

Same to a tee...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: GregTheGrumpy on 11/21/2019 09:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 11/21/2019 09:48 pm
Carve-over from Texas Prototype Discussion

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).

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.

Ultimately, a 4G antenna has to run off the same backbone as your internet connection. No broadband, no 4G. In those cases, Starlink actually empowers 4G providers instead of competing with them. I have toyed with the idea of a fully integrated cell tower and Starlink receiver for a while. If you manage to pack both in a box, maybe even with a small battery and solar panels, expanding a 4G network becomes dropping off $5000 boxes every mile or so.

The idea could carry even further than the still-bad cell networks in the developed world. Want to connect a million people in rural Africa to the internet? Drop a handful of boxes in every village you can find. Need to connect a camp site or research station? Well, guess what...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: KSHavre on 11/21/2019 09:57 pm
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.

Before the mods get a chance to move this discussion to the Starlink thread... Here is the data that helps support the argument that there is a market for affordable Broadband in the US:

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/12/rural-and-lower-income-counties-lag-nation-internet-subscription.html

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/21/2019 10:24 pm
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.

/Waves hand.

I know we're being off topic, but I think it can be important to let folks know just how underserved a lot of America is for broadband. Here in west Georgia, not really even that deep in the sticks, my options are satellite and putting up a mast with a Yagi antenna with booster just to get 3G.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/21/2019 11:37 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mark_m on 11/21/2019 11:48 pm
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?

IANARS, but I would imagine it would take fewer satellites to use lower inclination orbits fill out full equatorial coverage, which wouldn't add to the general CONUS coverage. (Although it seems reasonable that they wouldn't use any inclinations much lower than one which results from a due-east launch.)

But this is theoretical; isn't the planned configuration known?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/21/2019 11:53 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/21/2019 11:59 pm
More sats over the U.S. and other highly populated parts of the world means more bandwidth available.  Their initial plan was to completely overlay the initial shell with another one at nearly identical inclination to get more bandwidth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/21/2019 11:59 pm
[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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 11/22/2019 12:42 am

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.
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.

Uh, I hate to break the bad news, but 5G rollouts are going to be long and painful, and run the risk of bankrupting companies. The density of cells necessary to achieve high speeds is no laughing matter, the costs of acquiring new tower space is going to be insane. Anybody who bought up the old PCS cellular stations (which were also high density) has a head start. Most carriers don't have the capital tables to actually support a full rollout.

Now, conventional fiber optic broadband penetration and associated wifi may change the situation for terrestrial telecomms. There has been serious talk again about federated wifi access, but the sticking point is payment schemes. There's been some blockchain noises to handle the payment schemes, but I can't speak on their merits. Past examples being Fon, and currently Express WiFi by Facebook. ISP's are also bundling wifi with their leased modem routers, such that they can piggyback their own federated wifi on customer equipment (and get them to effectively cover the cost).

But that does nothing for people in deep suburban/exurb areas, especially on the go. Starlink won't do anything for mobile uses (maybe parked RV's being the exception), but as a backhaul alternative in rural cell sites to avoid the fiber optic outlay is an interesting tactic though. Also covers mobile cell sites used for high density events and emergency response.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/22/2019 12:51 am
[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.

In order to provide equatorial regions similar continuous coverage, satellites would have to be evenly spaced within planes and between planes. Such coverage would result in extra satellites at higher latitudes.

What I gather from earlier posts is that SpaceX considers this a feature not a bug, since the “extra” satellites could provide additional bandwidth. I am guessing that these extra satellites would operate at a different frequency, or better put, SpaceX would use multiple frequencies to avoid confusing the user terminals.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/22/2019 01:03 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/22/2019 01:29 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/22/2019 01:36 am
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.

A continuously covered US does not necessarily mean there will be ground track gaps at the equators.  I think you are leaving an integral premise of your concerns unstated.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: lamid on 11/22/2019 09:03 am
Starlink SpaceX 20 planes with 20 satellites continuous coverage between 28-60 ° latitude,
altitude 550 km, inclination 53°.
https://youtu.be/fPbCtF9iUdg
coverage gaps:
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sferrin on 11/22/2019 09:38 am

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.
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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/04/10/us-spat-with-huawei-explained/

"As U.S. officials have pressured allies not to use networking gear from Chinese technology giant Huawei over spying concerns, President Trump has urged American companies to “step up” and compete to provide the next generation of high-speed, low-lag wireless service known as 5G.

There’s just one problem: Barely any U.S. companies manufacture the technology’s most critical components.

The absence of a major U.S. alternative to foreign suppliers of 5G networking equipment underscores the growing dominance of Huawei, which has evolved into the world’s biggest supplier of telecom equipment, sparking fears within the Trump administration that a 5G network powered by Huawei’s wireless parts could endanger national security. And it throws into sharp relief the years-long retreat by U.S. firms from that market."


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/22/2019 02:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/22/2019 04:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: happyflower on 11/22/2019 05:45 pm
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".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/22/2019 05:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SteveU on 11/22/2019 06:07 pm
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.
Speed of adoption really depends on the price point .  IMO Iridium took years because people didn't see the value initially.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/22/2019 06:43 pm
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.

It may simply be a casual thought, but if we were to look at your two questions for discussion purposes, you sort of get the following:

Starlink Retail Adoption Cadence as a Curiousity (eg: "I wonder about"):

This initial framing is undertandable but essentially an unknown.  As such, it's sort of not worth worrying.  It can be interesting to spitball but there are so many factors that are, to us, unquantifiable it doesn't much interest me though I wouldn't begrudge anyone's interest.

Starlink Retail Adoption Cadence as a Concern (eg: "May be slower than we hope"):

This latter framing is tautologically true.  The cost of "hope" is nil and therefore the demand for sooner approaches infinity.   ;D

But there are very practical benchmarks for what cadence is necessary and desireable, amongst which are:

1) Constellation Deployment to meet regulatory deadlines
2) Constellation Deployment sufficient for Acceptable Competitive Positioning
3) Retail Adoption Sufficient for Acceptable Cash Flows

To these:

1) I suspect Falcon 9 is is sufficient to satisfy this benchmark and so I'm not much worried about it.  Starlink makes it easier but not necessary

2) I suspect the SX advantages on Launch Cost and consequently Constellation size is such that, coupled with impediments to competitors ability to move faster, SX is fine here and even if surpassed early could overtake and run away with the market.

3) I suspect the move to stainless has reduced costs such that long-term funding isn't a huge concern, but obviously more $$$ faster is always helpful.  So then here, what might we expect from an early roll-out.

Early Rollout:

The 53 degree inclination puts the intial ground track north of the US Border AIUI but sufficient to service the northern tier of the United States with significant rural expanses.  The remark of someone elsewhere on Texas service makes me think there is an underserved market.

After Beta-Testing some users and IF they can get a reliable service, then I'd imagine multiples of 100K customers would be readily achievable at a revenue of arguably $100M per 100K customers per year.  And that's just for the US Market based on easier regulatory hurdles.  I'd discount early penetration into other developed markets.

However, I suspect there would also be a worldwide demand of significant opportunity to sell into underdeveloped regions where they were (perhaps) less concerned about erecting regulatory hurdles.  For much of the world, the axiom might well be "Any (ethernet)port in a storm".  I'm not even sure coverage gaps would make service unsellable although here you are talking about areas that are desparate for any connectivity.

And even a modest coverage with gaps could be marketable for certain commericial purposes over the oceans.

Lot of blathering there about a bunch of unknowables, but my thoughts based on your casual musings.
 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/22/2019 06:55 pm
On the point "Falcon 9 Sufficient for Starlink" it's probably been done before but in big round numbers to meet regulatory deadlines, you need:

6K constellation by EOY 2024 and a 12K constellation by EOY 2027.

6K constellation is roughly 100 launches and can be done (roughly) with a run-rate equal to next year's 24/yr discounting increased rate.  That increased rate will be necessary to meet EOY 2027
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/22/2019 10:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/22/2019 11:28 pm
Starlink as defined by SpaceX does have equatorial coverage gaps at the end of the initial phase.

The 4409 Sat Constellation?  I'd be stunned if that were the case.  10x the population lamid posted above?

The point remains:  The 30 degree and up constellation will cover the equator.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/22/2019 11:35 pm
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.

The initial shell (1500 sats) covers the equator.  SpaceX will begin offering service at higher latitudes before they have full equatorial coverage.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: lamid on 11/23/2019 02:32 am
Yes, 1584 satellites in altitude 550 km  covers latitude -60°-60°.
Older version 24 planes with 66 satellites
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Starlink_24planes_a_66sat_sum_1584_satelites.png)
New 72 planes with 22
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Starlink_SpaceX_1584_satellites_72_Planes_22each.png)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/23/2019 02:48 am
Yes, 1584 satellites in altitude 550 km  covers latitude -60°-60°.

At a glance (if to scale), your 20x20 video seems to suggest that even as low as 20 planes of 40 would eliminate gaps.  Am I misinterpreting that?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: lamid on 11/23/2019 08:09 am
20x40 = 800 satellites
Probably yes, I haven't explored.
Now, SpaceX wants to have 22 satellites in one planes.
800/22 = 36 planes
So he wants to go to more planes than satellites in the plane.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 11/23/2019 08:38 am
"Coverage" does not have as sharp a threshold as some may be thinking.

Some minimal constellation will have complete coverage if you have a clear horizon and everything works perfectly.  This could be attractive to some users but not to others.

Similarly gaps of a few minutes will still result in 99% uptime (which is better than rural electricity in parts of the US).  Usable for many but not for some.

Even the very low uptime of the initial partially deployed constellation could be useful to somebody. (c.f. early Iridium and GPS where people predicted availability and got up in the middle of the night to make phone calls or take fixes.)
 
Adding more satellites of course improves everything.  But they could offer some services quite early.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: lamid on 11/23/2019 08:55 am
I'd like to see what ion engine is used in satellites.
I would be interested in Isp and thrust.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 11/23/2019 09:19 am
I'd like to see what ion engine is used in satellites.
I would be interested in Isp and thrust.


Elon Musk @elonmusk
Replying to @elonmusk and @SpaceX
Krypton thrusters operative, satellites initiating orbit raise every 90 mins

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1131782570864066560

--------

Everyday Astronaut @Erdayastronaut

I’m actually shocked you’d even consider an expendable StarShip upper stage instead of just delivering a kick stage! I’ll bet a F9 upper stage and large payload could fit inside the cargo bay of StarShip. Now that would be wild! 🤯
|
@Elon Musk @elonmusk
Replying to  @Erdayastronaut and @DiscoverMag
Probably no fairing either & just 3 Raptor Vacuum engines. Mass ratio of ~30 (1200 tons full, 40 tons empty) with Isp of 380. Then drop a few dozen modified Starlink satellites from empty engine bays with ~1600 Isp, MR 2. Spread out, see what’s there. Not impossible.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1111798912141017089
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 11/23/2019 07:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/23/2019 07:54 pm
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.

Don't assign too much import to 20x40.  It was just my eyeballing of lamid's video to guage a sense of what size constellation would eliminate the gaps 20x20 showed.  The basis was that it looked like a 40 sat plane versus his 20 sat plane would eliminate the sat-to-sat gaps and in combination wih all the other plane, eliminate the gaps overall.

As gongora alluded, the inital shell would fully cover because it's improving on the 20x40 benchmark spitball by deploying 24 planes x 66 = 1584.   So it seems irrespective of approval to shift to 72 planes, they are good for coverage starting in the neighborhood of 800 sats depending on what the 24 vs. 72 plane difference are.

I'm not sure how hard (deltaV) it is to split a fully raised plane.  I though gongorra referenced they were waiting to raise 44 until approval to split planes.

Either way, I'd not be suprised if shell with a mix of 66 and 22 bird planes couldn't evolve, but IDK if that has other problems.

To the "stretching things thin" point, I think that's want is naturally avoided at high latitudes and only becomes an issue at low lats which (1) are a secondary/latter focus and (2) can maybe deal with it vs what they have now.  Regardless, it's a problem that disappears quickly as the next shell is filled out.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/23/2019 09:53 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: WindyCity on 11/23/2019 10:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/23/2019 11:40 pm
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.

Yes.  That is an example of #1 as I mentioned.  That isn't the SpaceX baseline architecture.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/24/2019 12:15 am
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/24/2019 12:46 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/24/2019 12:51 am
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.

Definitely quickly.  My quick estimate is a "rounded-up" 16 launches could cover minimally everything up to the 53 degree band. 

I like those kinds of numbers because even if I'm off big-time or delays happen, that's real revenue right around the corner.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 11/24/2019 01:05 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: lamid on 11/24/2019 06:46 am

...
@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.  ...

thank you, I tried the simulation:
height increase was 5.9 ° / day,
 with ISP 1600 sec, calculation result a thrust of 0.01 N
and from 350 km to 550 km will climb 34 days.

Isn't the starlink engine specification published somewhere?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 11/24/2019 07:10 am
Not much I've seen, other than they're Hall effect thrusters using Krypton
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 11/24/2019 03:47 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 11/24/2019 04:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 11/24/2019 04:21 pm
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.

Got thanks... My question is how much will disintegrate on reentry?  The only numbers I've seen are SpaceX's.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/24/2019 11:49 pm
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).

No one is suggesting that SpaceX will stop launching when the United States has full coverage. I am simply noting that there will be a period when the US has continuous coverage, but equatorial regions will not.

Moreover, using a 53 degree inclined orbit makes it harder to cover the equatorial regions. As noted earlier, the inefficiencies result in superfluous coverage of higher latitudes. If there is a lot of demand, these extra satellites can provide extra bandwidth, but that presents some additional technical issues.

It’s almost worthwhile to revive Falcon 1 and launch out of Omolek again. Or not.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/25/2019 03:03 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/25/2019 03:18 am
Just ran across this simulation which highlights the effects on latency over and above simply coverage

https://youtu.be/AdKNCBrkZQ4
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 11/25/2019 05:22 am
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/25/2019 12:46 pm
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.

Every orbit has strengths and weaknesses.

A 53 degree orbit happens to be inefficient for coverage of equatorial regions.

I am not suggesting that SpaceX made an error in choosing this orbit.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 11/25/2019 01:24 pm
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)


Thanks for finding that.  So perhaps moving to 1100 is an insurance policy in case the satellite dies before it could be properly de-orbited?  Or perhaps it uses less fuel to do a slow de-orbit (one year) from the temporary graveyard.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/25/2019 02:05 pm
A 53 degree orbit happens to be inefficient for coverage of equatorial regions.

It's not inefficient in any meaningful way.  It would be stupifyingly irrational to waste constellation assets efficiently covering the equatorial regions.

The infinitely more salient point is that it happens to be extraordinarily inefficient overall trying to chase the maximization of efficiency covering the equatorial regions.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/25/2019 02:07 pm
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.
There's already a big polar market. A lot of airliner flight are polar routes.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/25/2019 04:25 pm
A few things: gongora has a better grasp of the facts of Starlink orbits than anyone else (other than SpaceX themselves) I’ve seen on this forum. He follows very closely and has corrected me before.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/25/2019 09:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 11/25/2019 11:41 pm
Is there any easy way of visualizing coverage gaps during various phases such as early deployment, based on the latest filings? Or is the nature of the selected orbits such that the gaps will slide around the earth, so there are no fixed gap spots on earth, just times of unavailability? Those youtube visualizations didn't make it clear to me, and those were for the old orbits anyways.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 11/25/2019 11:46 pm
With respect to potential customers....

Canada may only have approx 1/10th the population of the US but we have a fair amount of hectares to cover in northern territory...well...most of this country. This was why we pioneered satellite television broadcasting as a way to be cost effective for infrastructure, many decades ago.

I would argue that internet access is probably very important for a majority of northern folks now for many modern reasons. A great many are under served and/or only have access to lower bandwidth commercial sat broadbeam which is still not cheap. I even remember watching VHS tapes that were flown in...but that's another story.

For us in the north, I would hazard to guess that potential customers would be shipping, aircraft, under served civilians and possible ancillary government agency coverage such as military, coast guard, search and rescue, medivacs and northern resupply missions as well as online medical assistance (very important).

I will bravely guess ...oh...more than a few dozen customers :)

Once the constellation becomes global, I would imagine our other northern friends may have similar interests.

my 2 cents
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/26/2019 12:08 am
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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 11/26/2019 12:24 am
Quite right...

The best part is future pricing from competition. (deep pockets may play a part)

Either way, Oneweb, Starlink and present commercial ventures will only benefit the non and under served.

I can't wait...very excited about this for the future.

edit...spelling....
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/26/2019 12:45 am
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.

This is absolutely true in all three respects[1].  It feels like Robotbeat's point AIUI might be lost though.  While the FCC License doesn't require it (equatorial coverage), it ensures it as a side-effect of the 50% and 100% deadlines for constellation deployment.

Footnote 1:  You could probably get a marketable service even with unreliable service (IoT Ping Home Data for Aircraft or Maritime) but the contellation fill-out will bring full coverage online so fast it's not worth considering.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 11/26/2019 08:47 am
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.)

A short while ago there was a documentary on LEO constellations on german TV. With extensive coverage of One Web. One Web is aiming to be operational by end of 2021. By that time Starlink should have polar coverage too.

One Web might offer polar service earlier than that but they did not say anything about it in interviews.l
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 11/26/2019 09:25 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JamesH65 on 11/26/2019 12:58 pm
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.

Still many gaps though. I'm not Northern Europe (unless you count the UK as north), but I am rural and although I have decent broadband I know a LOT of people who don't. And that is within 40 miles of Cambridge, the tech capital of the UK....

There will be no lack of customers for this, worldwide.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 11/26/2019 01:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/26/2019 01:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 11/26/2019 01:35 pm
Could they (from a technical perspective) block Starlink signals?

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tulse on 11/26/2019 01:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/26/2019 03:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/26/2019 03:16 pm
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.
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.
 You won't be able to use the system in Moscow just by smuggling one in.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 11/26/2019 03:16 pm
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?

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/26/2019 03:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/26/2019 03:31 pm
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?

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.
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, 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/26/2019 05:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/26/2019 06:23 pm
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.
 In the early days, before it became congested, Iridium would keep simultaneous connection to prevent dropouts. That could be an option with Starlink as long as they're under subscribed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/26/2019 06:31 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 11/26/2019 06:35 pm
Nomadd.
Guarantee you that 90% of yachts/ships over 45 feet will take Starlink anyday. I have an 18 Trackvision plus an Iridium antenna on my boat. Both could go and have on Starlink antenna.  I've seen many with 4+ Iridium domes (1.5m) on masts that could be eliminated with 2 Starlink antenna (one for backup).

The bigger the ship the more gear on the masts but the greater opportunity to get rid of some of it and replace with newer tech (and reduce the weight as well).

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?

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.
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, 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/26/2019 06:39 pm
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.

That which doesn’t make you stronger, kills you.  ;D

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/26/2019 06:46 pm
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.

That's pretty much the market O3B is serving now (and also cruise ships).  The O3B satellites in MEO have a little better latency than the GEO birds.  There are currently more connectivity options at the equator than in the polar regions.  O3B's ground stations look like they're not very cheap and they don't target individual homes, so they aren't a solution for everyone.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/26/2019 07:00 pm
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?

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.
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, 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/26/2019 07:03 pm
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
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/26/2019 07:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 11/26/2019 07:36 pm
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/26/2019 07:39 pm
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 asking about rain impact on connectivity.  Dish and DirectTV tend to cut-out some during weather unless things have improved.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/26/2019 07:44 pm
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?

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.
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, 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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Swedish chef on 11/26/2019 07:48 pm
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.

Well at least here in Sweden the last mile problem is solved, at least in the parts of the country that very few people live in. 4G and soon 5G took care of that problem, though its expensive. There are also subsidies one could seek if you want fiber to the more remote parts in Sweden. This does not give everyone in a prepper cabin out in the woods nice connectivity. But at least the people who could afford it now have connectivity so they could watch youtube.

So with that said, the price is important here. Our telecom companies take their cue from America. So if there is an asshole move a telecom company can make, after 2 years our telecom companies have adopted it. If SpaceX can have a lower price for decent broadband connection and its somewhat easy to set up. (I'm thinking of the antenna here) Then Starlink would be a bestseller here. (But that is phase 2 of building up Starlink, remind me after 2-3 years how it went)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 11/26/2019 07:49 pm
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.

 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/26/2019 07:52 pm

I'm asking about rain impact on connectivity.  Dish and DirectTV tend to cut-out some during weather unless things have improved.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 11/26/2019 07:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 11/26/2019 08:05 pm
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.

For rain it could choose the one with the least amount of degradation, or use multiple links to get the data through.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/26/2019 08:16 pm
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.
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.
 Starlink will have very narrow beam uphill.
 There was a lot of nonsense specs thrown around about that antenna Kevinof referred to. It was actually very close to a simple 1.6 Ghz handheld antenna. It's main advantage was that you could mount it where it had a clean view of the sky. I used them on ships. You can't really get gain on an omni directional antenna. There were special bi-directional pre-amps you could use for high loss cable runs.  Old timers who still thought RG214 was the best cable needed those.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 11/26/2019 08:51 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/26/2019 09:50 pm
My guess is that SpaceX will not block access in certain countries.  But it's tricky, because they may eventually want something at the ITU and every country will have a vote.  Probably better as a rule to not accept the signal from most/all countries where they don't have landing rights.  Besides, you don't want to have to fight the sat jamming and anti-sat missile threats.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/26/2019 09:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 11/26/2019 10:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 11/26/2019 11:25 pm
Maybe a bit of clarification for some people.

Traditional satellite ground station antennas were big dishes steered to a particular satellite. Dishes on moving platforms like boats also need motion/angle compensation to some extent. Those boat domes either had a parabolic dish that swiveled around, or more recent ones have swapped the parabolic for a phased array plate (keeping the gyro-stabilized mount).

Newer phased array dishes come in a number of interesting flavors. The pizzabox car roof mount ones actually implement a series of angled slats on top of a circular plate, and the circular plate is mechanically slewed. The mechanical slewing gives you 360 directional coverage, and the phased array steering portion of the setup takes care of elevation. Think of a 45 degree angled flat plate phased array antenna, then slice that up and collapse it vertically. Some don't even do the 45 degree angled slat approach or the mechanical steering and just point straight up, but that assumes the flat plate itself can see most of the sky it wants to see (off axis phased array steering gets harder the farther you are from the antenna physical pointing axis due to simple geometry issues) and electronically steer as needed. If you don't need to see all the way down to the horizon, cheating with a single non-angled plate is possible, especially if you will have obstructing objects around you like houses anyways.

A more comprehensive all solid state approach is having a 3 or 4 sided pyramid with phased array antennas on each face, then software handing off between antennas as the target satellite moves across your field of view. Gets more expensive as you need more antenna though. With the number of satellites and the rate of handoffs though, having a multiantenna pyramid may be advantageous, and might also allow cheating to get more uplinks by going simultaneous multi-sat.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/27/2019 12:29 am
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. 
Every Starlink dish will probably include GPS receivers and connections won't be allowed where they're not allowed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/27/2019 12:39 am
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.

I'm not Nomadd, but I do have satellite internet with Viacom. It can rain hard all day in the wintertime with very little signal loss, but summertime thunderstorms? Shuts me right down. Those towering cumulonimbus clouds are like a brick wall.

So in that respect if Starlink can treat them as just another obstruction shifting targets should help a lot. On the other hand, I have no idea about relative signal strength. As the sats are lower I would assume less power to maintain the same connection, but who knows?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 11/27/2019 12:51 am
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. 
Every Starlink dish will probably include GPS receivers and connections won't be allowed where they're not allowed.

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. 

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 11/27/2019 02:11 am
>
>
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.

Like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/27/2019 02:29 am
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. 
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.


That is F’n weird
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/27/2019 02:39 am
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.
I interpreted that as:

Every Starlink dish will probably include GPS receivers and connections won't be allowed [by Starlink] where [Starlink is] not allowed [to operate].

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/27/2019 04:24 am
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.
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.

 Solar conjunction days were always fun and usually forgotten until they happened.
 I finally started sending out warnings twice a year.

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.
I interpreted that as:

Every Starlink dish will probably include GPS receivers and connections won't be allowed [by Starlink] where [Starlink is] not allowed [to operate].

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 11/27/2019 06:07 am
For reference, many Iridium modem boards have GPS onboard/integrated, though how much that is for clock timing and ephemeris related stuff, and not legal, I don't know.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Draggendrop on 11/27/2019 06:50 am
Wrt the signal loss issue, I will try to keep it generic to somewhat answer the question.

The issue is the wavelength of the rf signal and atmospheric attenuation. Here we are talking about water molecule size and the length of path through this attenuating medium that a particular wavelength must travel.

We have an uplink and a downlink "budget" that we work with. These are equations that take an isotropic radiated power and we start subtracting (in db's) known constant and somewhat variable loss mechanisms and hope this leads to an acceptable signal to be demodulated at the rxer.

Some systems we are able to employ adaptive transmission power schemes as well as modified modulation levels.

The entire frequency spectrum of rf is a trade-off of bandwidth, s/n and range.

Lower sat frequencies, such as C band, are affected but the situation gets more troubling as we increase frequency above approx 10 Ghz...and the frequencies in use for Ku and Ka take a beating.

This can be somewhat managed by todays control regimes but will always be present due to one main issue.

One must build a cost effective system for profitable use. We drastically increase the system cost when we start increasing power levels and complexity...because this is all centered around an expensive payload in orbit. This is why satellite television broadcasting has the "famous fade"..we build to keep it afforable for the customer and this entails trade-offs.

We do the best we can for most situations and take the hit for the real bad ones...ie heavy rainfall, ice and snow storms. Hope this helps.

For more info, look up satellite budgets and radio frequency characteristics.

//Nomadd had it correct...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 11/27/2019 07:54 am
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.

That naturally does not apply to Northern Europe alone, but pretty much all places where airliners and ships are out of reach of ground-based internet facilities.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 11/27/2019 05:51 pm
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. 
Every Starlink dish will probably include GPS receivers and connections won't be allowed where they're not allowed.
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.

*With today's tech, dozens of transceivers on one chip would be easy. Just look at all modern GPS chips.
** It can grab timing pulses from packets sent to anybody.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 11/27/2019 11:02 pm
Is there a Starlink “basics” page that can summarize some of the simple questions and andwers around its operation? Apologies if this has been answered before, but what is the radius of coverage that a current Starlink satellite provides?

If the radius is for argument’s sake 100 km on the earth’s surface, then simplistically that would suggest to me that a train of just 200 Starlink satellites, spaced 200 km apart, would provide continuous coverage for a 200km wide band encircling the earth. And 400 satellites in two parallel orbits would broaden that band to 400km and so on and so forth.Maybe slightly less than 200km, so ensure that the edges overlap to close any gaps between the individual coverage circles.

Similarly, if the coverage radius is only 50km, however, the number of satellites required in each train would double, and the trains would need to be closer to each other by a factor of 2.

I realise the above is a pretty simple attempt to understand the operation of the system, and would happily be redirected if it is already explained elsewhere.

Is my above attempt to understand the system fundamentally flawed?

EDIT

Upon a moment’s reflection I realise that one mistake in my above scenario is that the coverage per satellite is obviously a circle around each, not a square, hence they would need to be much closer together in order to ensure no coverage gaps inbetween. Still, what I’m getting at is that full coverage over (initially narrow) earth encircling bands/corridors should be achievable with only hundreds of satellites, rather than thousands.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/27/2019 11:37 pm
From the FCC filings:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 11/27/2019 11:47 pm
From the FCC filings:
Quote
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.

Thanks Gongora. So if I read that diagram correctly, each satellite can cover a circle in excess of 500km in diameter. So as little as a few hundred satellites, if all in the same orbit, could theoretically already provide continuous coverage for areas directly under the orbit.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SteveU on 11/28/2019 12:06 am
From the FCC filings:
Quote
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.
Does the last sentence really mean there will be sat’s in polar orbit?
Will these be a separate constellation beyond the currently planned inclination?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/28/2019 12:21 am
This has been the plan since 2016.  (The 1150km shell is now at 550km.  I won't be shocked if some of the others move around too.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 11/28/2019 12:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 11/28/2019 01:16 am
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.

Even better.

So the point I’m working towards is that they could start earning revenue after the next couple of launches if they wanted to then. Because based on that diagram, just a few hundred sats could continuously cover a band encircling the earth, hundreds of km’s wide.

Any population centres or individuals located in that band could be paying customers pretty much immediately. Unless I’m missing something.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/28/2019 01:25 am
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 bands around 50 degrees North/South latitude and move towards the equator as more sats are launched.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k73AFybi7zk
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 11/28/2019 01:28 am
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

OK. Why does it have to be latitude based, though? Why not orbit based, with latitude coverage filling in over time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/28/2019 01:33 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 11/28/2019 01:38 am
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.

Ah my mistake! I assumed the satellite passes the same spot on the earth’s surface each time it completes an orbit. Didn’t consider the impact of the earth’s rotation on this.

Guess that answers my question. Thanks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/28/2019 04:13 am
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 11/28/2019 06:48 am
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)

It is a well-known fact that Stephane is not a big fan of Elon Musk. The latter is after all the guy who almost single-handedly trampled French national pride; Arianespace is no longer the world's leading launch services provider.

So this is basically all about a hurt ego. Stephane knows that Arianespace is currently not capable of replicating the capabilities of SpaceX. And so he just complains. Not the first time he does that. He's been complaining about SpaceX ever since they became a major factor in the world of launch services. Stephane would be well advised to stop concern-trolling and start competing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 11/28/2019 07:10 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 11/28/2019 07:53 am
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.
He is  from the french "boys network" and has no banal, any, none, zero experience in building or even participating in something real. People in Alcatel hate him with a passion.
His is a psychoanalyst by vocation and historian by his education and work experience.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: pochimax on 11/28/2019 08:49 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 11/28/2019 10:40 am
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.

This is an interesting topic but it should go into space policy section. Its well worth a discussion but not here.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 11/28/2019 11:04 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 11/28/2019 11:08 am
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.

Interesting post. But HOW exactly would Starlink be a "threat to national sovereignity"?

Also: your assumption that Elon Musk has no comprehension about politics is - and I am putting this mildly - flat out wrong.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 11/28/2019 11:17 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 11/28/2019 12:35 pm
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.

Starlink doesn't need customers in every country to make a profit. North America alone will be a huge market.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: QuantumG on 11/28/2019 09:36 pm
Countries wanting to control Internet access will make Starlink equipment illegal. Depending on the government, the penalties could be severe.

... and Starlink will cooperate as much as possible with their demands to make sure that doesn't happen.

North America alone will be a huge market.

You're not exempt. There's wiretapping laws on the books that Starlink will have to conform to. Various 3 letter agencies demand access to your internet connection, right now.




Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 11/29/2019 04:31 am
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: snotis on 11/29/2019 05:25 am
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 11/29/2019 08:18 am
Does this mean that the SpaceX-supplied TLEs (SupTLE?) are getting closer to observed TLEs?  If so - that is good news!

More likely 18 SPCS that maintains the catalog combines the space surveillance network data with SpaceX supplied data and now assigns the latter more weight. Onboard GPS tracker data is more precise. From a recent article (https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/13/business/space-junk-tracking-companies-scn/index.html):

Quote
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.

AstriaGraph demo (http://astriacss.tacc.utexas.edu/ui/min.html) (based on space-track.org TLEs I believe)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 11/29/2019 10:25 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 11/30/2019 12:27 am
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

To further expand on this, I have been trying to figure out which company has been supplying SpaceX with the equipment for the testing so far.

This article indicates the Air Force was happy with the testing results from Starlink with download speeds of 610 megabits per second into the cockpit of a C-12J Huron twin-engine turboprop aircraft.

https://spacenews.com/air-force-enthusiastic-about-commercial-leo-broadband-after-successful-tests/

This article is about Telesat testing with Gilat equipment for LEO satellites achieving 1.2 Gbps.

https://www.satellitetoday.com/mobility/2019/11/21/gilat-achieves-fastest-modem-speeds-over-telesat-leo-satellite/

And from looking at Gilat's current customer list, they are supplying all of the equipment for Gogo and others on commercial airlines to connect to current GEO satellites for internet connection on flights.

I have a suspicion from reading lots of articles and the SEC filings, that Gilat (Nasdaq symbol GILT) is supplying the phased array antennas and other equipment for Starlink. During the last earnings conference call, the Gilat CEO said they are testing with all of the LEO constellation companies.

https://www.gilat.com/technology/esapaa

https://www.gilat.com/technologies/antennas/military/

This is merely my suspicion. But all of the hints are there from various sources.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2019 05:16 am
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 kind of nonsense makes Arianespace look very silly and out of touch to anyone who understands what is actually going on.  And it's nothing new.  High-level European space establishment folks have been leveling all sorts of ridiculous criticisms at SpaceX over the years.

People have been urging Europe for many years to take heed of what SpaceX has been doing and learn the lessons it has taught.  Instead, Europe's establishment just sneered and derided SpaceX, and just did more of the same old thing with Ariane 6.  And now that it's become impossible to deny that SpaceX will be able to launch a constellation of thousands of satellites, Arianespace cries monopoly.  It's not a monopoly because there are no barriers to entry.  Europe could have the same capabilities.  They chose not to.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 11/30/2019 07:11 am
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.
this.^^^^

there is very serious movement to oblige companies to ensure de-orbiting as the end-of-life event.
Airbus (oneWeb) design success was a starting point in the pushing of this narative.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 11/30/2019 02:11 pm
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'
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: philw1776 on 11/30/2019 03:20 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 11/30/2019 05:50 pm
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

True. I saw that. 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 Satellite Networks (Nasdaq symbol: GILT). But I am hunting for other likely suspects so I can spread my investment dollars around a few different horses in this race.

As Starlink starts rolling out and building its ground network for customers, Gilat's revenue could spike with it.
Or another likely scenario is that some major networking gear company is going to make a takeover offer of Gilat so that they have exposure to this new broadband satellite gear market.


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2019 06:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 11/30/2019 06:36 pm
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 ?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/30/2019 10:02 pm
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 ?
Why would you hop through any if Starlink can take you direct?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 11/30/2019 10:17 pm
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 ?).

Are there any articles about this? I looked, but cannot find anything. Or if there is another topic in Space Policy ???

Thanks
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 11/30/2019 10:30 pm

 Why would you hop through any if Starlink can take you direct?

Regulatory access in each country is likely an issue. It is far easier for Starlink to provide bandwidth B2B to the national telecomm company in a country than it is to engage in B2C direct access. It is unlikely that Starlink will even be allowed to sell direct to the consumer in many of these countries. The government powers, especially outside of USA and western democracies, will want some manner of control over access to the information. By forcing Starlink to deal through their national telecomm provider, the governments maintain some level of control over information.

Many countries around the world are not free market economies. Their governments support national champion companies with regulations and high taxation. These countries are unlikely to welcome a new player (Starlink) that takes a chunk of their revenue.

Many of the politicians treat these big telecomm companies (oil companies, utility companies, etc) as places for political patronage, jobs for their kids, nephews, brother/sister, etc. So they are protected, because it provides income to the families of the powerful in each country.

It is far more likely that Starlink will do deals B2B with the national telecommunications company of many countries. Starlink will authorize that telecomm company to be a reseller of Starlink phased array antennas and handle the billing to the consumers within that country. That way each telecomm company can extract their cut of the pie and can pass it along to the powers that be in the political establishment.

It might not be elegant. But that is the reality of doing business in most of the world.

Starlink will likely be able to do B2C direct in countries like the USA, Canada, many EU countries, Japan, Australia, South Korea, etc. But in many other areas of the world, Starlink will be forced to go through native telecomm companies B2B. Bulk bandwidth contracts with those national telecomm companies is the most likely route with little resistance in those countries.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 12/01/2019 12:33 am
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.

(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....

Ditto politics of landing rights, who is free market etc...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/04/2019 09:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 12/05/2019 02:14 am
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.

An interesting meeting I think.
Nice to see progress. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/07/2019 01:27 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1203318574376529920

Quote
SpaceX’s Gwynne Shotwell says “subsequent launches will see [Starlink] satellites with experimental coatings to reduce their brightness in the sky”

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-07/spacex-starlink-service
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/07/2019 02:35 pm
https://spacenews.com/spacex-working-on-fix-for-starlink-satellites-so-they-dont-disrupt-astronomy/
Quote
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.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 12/07/2019 03:42 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 12/07/2019 04:00 pm
We know SpaceX and FCC met Tuesday.  Maybe they're trying to get their ducks lined up before launching the next batch.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.msg2022006#msg2022006
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 12/07/2019 05:06 pm
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.

It could be range availability, pad availability, maybe FCC issues, or sat manufacturing. Or something else.

This does raise a question. What is the fastest SX has ever done a pad turnaround? Shortest interval between launches from the same pad. Anybody know?

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/07/2019 05:30 pm
The SpaceX meeting with the FCC this week wasn't anything special, they do that fairly often (as do the other satellite companies.)  They have turned around a pad in a little less than two weeks.  Once the first Starlink v1 flight slipped into the second week of November it was unlikely the next flight would happen before the end of December just due to their schedule with other missions.  (They don't have a lot of boosters available right now, manufacturing has slowed down.  They've only flown 7 new boosters this year including the ones for Falcon Heavy.  For Starlink they're probably going to need to keep refurbishing a small number of boosters.))
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/07/2019 07:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 12/07/2019 07:20 pm
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.

Maybe not all but probably the major players...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/07/2019 08:00 pm
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.

They had meetings over a two day period with a bunch of people at FCC.  I'd be very surprised if any particular meeting had all of the people mentioned in attendance.  It's not that unusual to have a series of meetings over a couple days.

Here are some of the meetings noted this year dealing with some of the NGSO filings, I've probably missed some.  (IB is International Bureau, the FCC division that deals with these constellations.)

OneWeb
Feb 4 by phone - IB
April 1 - IB
April 8 by phone - IB
April 10-11 - Separate meetings with several commissioners and Pai's Legal Advisor
April 15 - one commissioner
April 22 by phone - IB
May 10 - Pai and advisor
May 29 - IB
June 11 by phone - IB
Oct 15 - one commissioner and staff

SpaceX
Mar 14 - IB
Mar 19 - IB
Mar 21/22/25 - one commissioner and staff of two others
Mar 27 - Pai's advisor
June 25 - IB
July 24 by phone - IB
July 31 - Pai and staff
Dec 2-3 - Pai, 3 commissioners, IB.  Multiple topics including 12 GHz MVDDS spectrum

Amazon
July 26 - Pai
July 30 - one commissioner and staff
Sep 25 - IB
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/07/2019 09:12 pm
Thank you for that information.  So this was the biggest meeting this year for the megaconstellations.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/08/2019 03:26 am
I'm telling you, gongora really keeps tabs on this. He(?) knows this stuff.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/08/2019 03:32 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 12/08/2019 05:10 pm
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.
He (?) didn't bite...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: theinternetftw on 12/08/2019 10:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Comga on 12/08/2019 10:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 12/09/2019 12:10 am
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.

Do they have enough F9 1st stages ready? 
What is the shortest 1st stage refurb time so far? 
For now lets assume a month to refurb a 1st stage. 
If they rotate four 1st stages these will quickly become the highest flown F9's. 
Although designed ten flights without refurb these being the first will be under extra scrutiny,
As they build flight time they may extend the ten flight limit. 

They have already launched on the same pad in two weeks, right? 

Edit: 
They could rotate one quicker if they wanted to build up time quicker.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/09/2019 12:18 am
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.

SpaceX's launch record suggests it's gotten quite good at recovering stages and reusing them.  That makes it quite a lot easier for them to have a high flight rate.  They used to have lengthy delays in launching customer payloads on Falcon 9.  Not so much any more.  It has taken them a while to get a reliable ability to launch F9 on time, or nearly on time.  But they seem to be there.

The limiting factor on flight rate in the last year seems very clearly to have been about payloads.

The recent Starlink launches seem to indicate that their assembly lines for Starlink have ramped up pretty well.  It's not 100% certain that they'll be able to crank out all 1,500 satellites by the end of next year, but the indications are good.  And the evidence suggests to me that with respect to Falcon 9 they've overcome all the roadblocks that would prevent a launch every two weeks or so.

I wouldn't be surprised if they come up a little short, but I do think it's likely that they'll get close to those 1,500 Starlinks in orbit by the end of next year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 12/09/2019 07:47 am
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.

That's why Elon Musk is always on about exponential growth. If you can go from 2 to 120 to 1500 satellites in one year and you misjudged the start of the curve, you look foolish for a year. If you don't believe the end goal, you look foolish from three years all the way. We've seen it with SpaceX, we've seen it with Tesla.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 12/09/2019 01:10 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 12/09/2019 02:13 pm
We might next year see flight rate limited not by payload, or rocket, but weather and/or range availability.  Will be interesting to see how far they can push the envelope.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Comga on 12/09/2019 03:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/09/2019 04:46 pm
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.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.  Sorry that I misinterpreted "We have heard this before."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ulm_atms on 12/10/2019 12:03 am
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/10/2019 12:11 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 12/10/2019 01:30 am
If SpaceX follows through with using Starship for 400/launch deployments that traffic jam may ease some, at least temporarily.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ulm_atms on 12/10/2019 01:37 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 12/10/2019 01:46 am
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.

Fortunately I don't think any of that is probable.  Particularly since there would be no overflight of another pad.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 12/10/2019 02:49 am
Starlink will be low priority and scheduled around other missions. 
They can fill their schedule on SLC-40 when nothing else is launching. 
SS will launch from Boca Chica and LC-39A. 
It will be phenomenal to watch. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/10/2019 08:18 am

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/09/business/spacex-starlink-antenna-user-terminal-scn/index.html

"
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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/10/2019 10:28 am
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-launch-second-announcement/amp/

Great article. Describes how SpaceX will dwarf its competitor OneWeb’s intended future constellation by mid next year already.

And more importantly, from my perpetually financially focused perspective, how they will do it for a fraction of OneWeb’s satellite manufacturing and launch costs.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/10/2019 10:35 am


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.

Actually, I think Amazon will struggle more than SpaceX with funding their constellation.

SpaceX will be helped significantly by having cheaper launch, unless Amazon wants to wait for Blue Origin to be ready.  I think Blue Origin will eventually get there.  But, given that Blue Origin has not yet reached orbit at all, I think 5 years to reach the point of cheap launch is optimistic.

Meanwhile, while Amazon is a company with a huge amount of money, it's also a public company.  It has a board representing many shareholders who may have other priorities than $5-$10 billion for an internet constellation.

SpaceX is private and Musk can do as he pleases.  All SpaceX investors want big bets on space from SpaceX -- that's why they're shareholders.  And Musk and SpaceX are so famous that they'll surely have a huge number of investors clambering on their doors begging to be allowed to invest.  Plus, even with none of that, Musk could fund it all from his Tesla stock, and says that he would if he has to.

Then there's the fact that SpaceX is already launching production satellites while Amazon is far from being ready to do that.  SpaceX has already retired much of the technical risk, and they have first-mover advantage, making them a more compelling investment.

I wouldn't be surprised to see both Amazon and SpaceX build out their internet constellations.  But if one or the other cuts their program because of costs, I think it's more likely to be Amazon than SpaceX.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/10/2019 12:01 pm
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..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: webdan on 12/10/2019 12:23 pm
Astronomy Picture of the Day:

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap191210.html (https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap191210.html)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 12/10/2019 12:23 pm
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..

New Glenn has a massive expendable fairing and a much lower expected flight rate. Not a recipe for lower launch costs. It's also mass limited to 3 or 4x what F9R can lift to LEO, which, combined with Starlink's extremely dense packing, puts a limit on the fairing size advantage.

Kuiper is far behind Starlink at this point.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/10/2019 08:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 12/10/2019 09:45 pm
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?
I wasn't prying, just amused at the non-exchange...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/10/2019 10:07 pm
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.
Amazon is few years away from deploying their constellation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/10/2019 10:17 pm
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.
Amazon is few years away from deploying their constellation.

The "initial constellation" that SpaceX is deploying on F9 is tiny compared with what they'll have by the time Amazon deploys.  It lets SpaceX build experience and get some revenue before Starship comes online to build out the really big constellation that Amazon will be competing against.

That early deployment of a smaller constellation doesn't hurt SpaceX compared to Amazon even if it is costlier per satellite because by the time Amazon can launch more cheaply SpaceX will already be launching more cheaply and will have gained money and experience from the earlier constellation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/11/2019 01:45 am

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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/11/2019 03:42 am
Jon Goff made a comment on twitter suggesting Starlink's lower altitude makes it harder to dodge debris, and implying Starlink should add grapple fixture like OneWeb:

https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1204448528581484544

I don't agree with this line of thinking. It is undoubtedly true that lower altitude makes things happening faster, but the question is, is there enough reaction time to perform avoidance. If reaction time is ample, then this is not an issue.

We can get the reaction time from the Aeolus/Starlink incident, in that case ESA and SpaceX was informed of potential close approach 5 days in advance, it's not clear when the collision probability crossed the threshold but ESA made the decision to move one day in advance, this seems to be more then enough reaction time. Add in the fact that this incident happened in a really low orbit (320 km) which is lower than the lowest orbit Starlink plans to use (328km), the Aeolus/Starlink conjunction is pretty much the worst case scenario.

So it seems to me Starlink would not require grapple fixture to be safe.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: indaco1 on 12/12/2019 12:17 am
..I see a launch complex traffic jam.  ;D
...

Could they resume Vandenberg?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 12/12/2019 01:49 am

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:

Quote
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 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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 12/12/2019 01:59 am
..I see a launch complex traffic jam.  ;D
...

Could they resume Vandenberg?

Vandenberg wouldn't work...

All they need to do is if they are not launching anything else fill SLC-40 schedule with Starlink launches...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/12/2019 02:17 am

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:

Quote
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 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...

The quote from the article says that they have a prototype production line.  That means they're already quite a bit past the breadboard stage.  They surely would have iterated, first getting functional prototypes and then refining them toward low-cost manufacturability.  It's only when they think they have a design without known issues for mass production that they would set up a prototype production line to find out what issues they hadn't thought of yet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/12/2019 04:15 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TorenAltair on 12/12/2019 07:19 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/12/2019 07:50 am
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?

These are good questions.

Another question is how many customer premises equipment units they can manufacture and ship by the end of 2020.  I think that's more likely to be the limit on revenue from Starlink until halfway through 2021 or later.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 12/12/2019 02:39 pm
Brief (?) summary of what I understand the situation to be for Starlink/SpaceX:

Early Fall they had 6 ground stations ready and one being built on the Northern Frontier of the United States, along the Canadian Border.

They had requested licensing of 1 million base stations earlier this year, with more requests to come, from the FCC. No word on Canadian requests  :'(

From May of this year, to today, they have had 2 launches of the 6 necessary to cover the Northern USA/Southern Canada. At a conservative guess, 40+ million people, Rural and City, 10+ million rural and urban households, and an unknown number of military and commercial (Wall St/Bay St) entities.

He now has a political reason to push. The member for Vermont's policy platform to deal with Commercial ISP intransigence in serving all of the USA with World Class Internet (Elon Musk to BS, hold my beer). Whether or not that could get passed in 2021, it is now part of the pressure Elon has to be taking into consideration, like it or not. There is no need to discuss the political merits, SO DON'T. It is a part of the calculus of pressure to succeed early.

They had expected to have had 3 launches by the end of 2019, but that seems to be unlikely now, so 2 launches of Starlink Satellites this year. Gwynne said "Average" of 2 per month in 2020. So that gives Late February, Early March to achieve the 6 launches to cover the Northern Tier of the USA and Southern Canada. With, optimistic, timeline, of 1 to 1 1/2 months to become fully operational. that would mean sometime in April. April 1st for Commercial Entities, and April 20th for Citizens. That's 5 months for production numbers to ramp up for base routers, and to get FCC/CRTC licenses for the first 1 million.

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

That is my farthings worth :)

Gramps
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: WindyCity on 12/12/2019 08:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/13/2019 12:28 am
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

I don't agree with the premise that the urgency is due to burn rate and the Elon's desire to have something good to report, no more than the usual anyway. I think the urgency is just what SpaceX does for everything, plus the need to beat their competitors (mostly OneWeb).

Funding wise, they raised $1.33B in 2019, that should be enough to cover 22 launches, if we assume each launch is $60M including the satellites, and with the progress they're making they can easily do another raise next year. Expenses wise, I don't think they're spending their own money on Starship, if you compare the Starship build site with Blue's New Glenn factory, it's pretty clear SpaceX is using a very spartan setup. There were also attempts to estimate the cost of the Starship build sites using parked cars, the result is in the tens of millions per year range, which is in agreement with Elon's comment that they're only using 5% of the company resources on Starship, so it's very likely they're just running on the funds from MZ.

And I'm not sure what the "embarrassing disappointments" are referring to, after a shaky Q1 Tesla is doing great in H2, on SpaceX side the only thing I can think of is the DM-1 capsule explosion and Mk-1 explosion, both are result of testing where some form of anomaly is not uncommon, so I don't see this more embarrassing than Omega blowing off its nozzle or Starliner pad abort losing a parachute, I very much doubt Elon is losing sleep on these.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/13/2019 12:42 am
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.

I doubt this would affect the launch of initial constellation, I see it more of a preparation for the future where they have 10,000+ satellites. The initial 1,500 wouldn't have much impact on astronomy because:

1. In AURA Statement on the Starlink Constellation of Satellites (https://www.aura-astronomy.org/news/aura-statement-on-the-starlink-constellation-of-satellites), AURA says a constellation of 10,000 Starlink satellites would have less than 0.01% impact on LSST.

2. In AAS Works to Mitigate Impact of Satellite Constellations on Ground-Based Observing (https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2019/12/aas-works-mitigate-impact-satellite-constellations-ground-based-observing), AAS says they and SpaceX agree that satisfying LSST's needs is the high bar for Starlink.

Add 1 and 2 together, I think we can conclude that no special coating is required for a constellation with less 10,000 satellites. Given they only plan to launch the initial constellation with 1,500 satellites in 2020, I don't think the coating issue would be a show stopper.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/13/2019 02:48 am
SpaceX has proven very responsive to these kind of concerns.

They lowered the orbit in part to address orbital debris concerns. They changed the design of the satellite to use fully demisable components. They'll doubtless try to eventually cloak their constellation as much as is feasible to address the visual impact as well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/13/2019 02:58 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 12/13/2019 01:59 pm
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/

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 12/13/2019 02:48 pm
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/

Two key paragraphs from the article:

Quote
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.

Quote
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 assumption that Starlink can't command anywhere near satellite internet prices which are up to $5/GB, while getting better market penetration with a far superior product, is a bit suspicious.

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.

Once retail costs approach 50 cents per GB, a lot of terrestrial broadband customers will at least consider it. That implies $7.5M per satellite revenue, which even with ground station costs included allows a healthy profit.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dror on 12/13/2019 03:25 pm
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/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/13/2019 03:37 pm
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/

He got it from the article.  He's not defending it.

For sure, SpaceX has to figure out the user terminals.  If they can't, then that kills their business.  Ground segment too.  SpaceX is developing and building both of those in-house, so we can guess that if SpaceX doesn't figure everything out at first, they can iterate at least one generation (one or two years) before having to close down Starlink.

Important to keep in mind that SpaceX is overwhelmingly funded by equity capital and has a steady book of business in launch/Dragon, so that gives them some breathing room.  And Musk & Co. have a fair bit of resources to figure this out.  Tim Farrar seems to forget these things.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/13/2019 04:32 pm
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/

It's quite interesting to see how this author's view of Starlink change in just one year, in order to appreciate this blog post you need to re-read his previous ones on Starlink from last year (use the SpaceX tag):
1. Last September: Starlink facing major cutbacks, significant portion of team departing, project will be put on hold because it's impossible to generate a business plan. The whole Yusaku Maezawa press event is a decoy to hide the bad news about Starlink.
2. Last November: Constellation projects will face major meltdown in 2019, mainly referring to Starlink and OneWeb.
3. This April: SpaceX is having trouble raising funds, Amazon's Kuiper announcement will make it even harder for SpaceX to raise funds.

And now this blog post basically did a 180, admits Starlink may be a "big deal" in satellite business, can break even in the worst case scenario, just not enough to compete with terrestrial broadband (this is why he's using terrestrial broadband pricing in his calculations).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/13/2019 05:06 pm
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.
SpaceX Starlink : Uses beyond just Earth communications (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49024.0)
Additional thread suggestions:

Satellite design/development/manufacture?

Deployment strategies/timelines/orbits?

Operations configurations/pricing/ground terminals?

I need to quit being lazy and do this some day.  Ones I'm thinking about now might be:

Hardware Design/Development/Manufacturing.  (Could have separate thread for ISL discussion.  Maybe separate thread for ground stations/user terminals, maybe not.)

Markets and Marketing (addressable markets, pricing, revenue projections, international operations, etc.  Potential split between civilian and military markets.)

There were enough posts about the collision avoidance incident with the ESA sat that I may make a thread just for that kind of thing.

A thread for tracking maneuvers of the satellites on orbit, separate from the launch mission threads.  Right now we have two sets of satellites moving around that are being tracked in their launch threads.  When there are a bunch more it might be nice to have all of the tracking info in one place.  (This thread could also include the discussions on constellation tracking and TLE propagation by SpaceX and the government.)  This would be separate from the satellite spotting thread that already exists.

Uses outside of Earth orbit (already exists).

Maybe a thread for discussion of the overall constellation orbits, or leave that in this General Discussion thread?

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: GWR64 on 12/13/2019 05:10 pm
...

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 ...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/13/2019 05:32 pm
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.

Building these sales and installation teams takes time.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/13/2019 05:41 pm
Tropical islands are another prime market, if government is onboard ( few backhands  needed in most cases) then they are half way there. Where government owns local network then Starlink will have very hard time entering it.

For every country will need to build a new sales and installation team along with admin overheads.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dlapine on 12/13/2019 05:47 pm
...

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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dlapine on 12/13/2019 05:54 pm
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.

Additionally, the LSST scope isn't scheduled to start operations before Oct 1 2022 (https://emails.illinois.edu/newsletter/250976.html), so they have a significant amount of time to find solutions before any extra reflected photons become a real issue for that project.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: goretexguy on 12/13/2019 06:07 pm
<snip>
In cities Starlink will need a significant  point of difference to convince customer to change from cable.
<snip>

I don't believe Netflix subscribers are the ideal first wave of customers for StarLink...

I find myself wondering if the many emergency services would prefer to stop worrying about their expensive radio relay systems and just start using "Voip-In-The-Sky" (VITS). Between local, country, state and federal agencies & services, there's a great deal of possible business who would very much like to have reliable comms no matter the situation on the ground.
This would also free up a fair amount of local radio bandwidth, standardize communications gear and simplify the communications networks of all these groups. 

Edit: fixed quote attribution.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tulse on 12/13/2019 06:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: schaban on 12/13/2019 07:40 pm
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: garcianc on 12/13/2019 08:09 pm
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...

Although I agree that the number of customers will quickly ramp up, ground terminals on Tesla cars has already been ruled out as part of that early adoption. I can't find the quote from Gwynne Shotwell but I know she was the one who made that comment. This article (https://www.teslarati.com/spacexs-starlink-internet-a-step-closer-to-customers-as-user-terminal-hiring-ramps-up/) mentions a bit about the ground terminal and their size/form-factor as a limitation.

I do think that one obvious captured customer base are those with a Tesla roof/solar installation or Powerwall users. Those are customers who are already at least partially off-grid. I much rather have Starlink broadband at home than in my car. I wouldn't want to wait for the car to come back before I can get online at home. There are also far more devices these days at home that need connectivity. Heck, half the light bulbs in my house are connected to a network.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: raketa on 12/13/2019 08:16 pm
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...
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RoboGoofers on 12/13/2019 09:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 12/13/2019 09:17 pm
...

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 ...

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%.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 12/13/2019 10:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: GWR64 on 12/13/2019 10:04 pm
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 )  :)

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/14/2019 04:31 am
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 )  :)

Actually the 4% figure comes from the blog author's estimate of load factor for Iridium:

Quote
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 12/14/2019 06:38 pm
For a LEO satellite, that number can't be high, given that most of the Earth is ocean (or desert) and there are just so many cruise ships to go around..

Using the idle satellites for backbone transmission helps derive value from them, even if it doesn't improve the aforementioned fill factor.

We live with similar fundamental limitations all the time though, in all sorts of systems.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 12/14/2019 07:55 pm
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"!
Gramps
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 12/14/2019 10:55 pm
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"!
Gramps
Maybe.  But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 12/15/2019 02:57 am
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"!
Gramps
Maybe.  But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.

If it only takes 20 users to saturate a satellite, then population density can be pretty low. Non-terrestrial users will probably be low density but very high bandwidth per terminal. For instance, airlines would love to put a low-cost gigabit-class connection on planes, but can't because the available bandwidth is too low and/or cost is too high.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-wi-fi-isnt-free-on-airlines-1532520000
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LouScheffer on 12/15/2019 02:16 pm
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"!
Gramps
Maybe.  But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
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!

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/16/2019 09:05 pm
Sure, the oceans are very, very sparsely populated compared to land.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 12/16/2019 09:35 pm
Sure, the oceans are very, very sparsely populated compared to land.

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.
I have iridium service on my boat. Calls and data included (unlimited) for $150 a month but... It's basically 2400 bps.

I would sign up in a heartbeat with starlink to get even 1mps and happily pay 150 a month for it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 12/16/2019 10:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 12/17/2019 03:38 pm
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"!
Gramps
Maybe.  But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
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!

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 12/17/2019 04:16 pm
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"!
Gramps
Maybe.  But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
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!

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/17/2019 04:41 pm
This isn't focused on Starlink, but the SpaceX sats get mentioned a couple times.

https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1206639607703490560
Quote
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!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fyjwGB7cCY
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 12/18/2019 02:44 pm
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)
Quote
Planet 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.

190x380 is even lower than the last one, right? They must be getting really confident in their deployment. Others would consider 190km reentry.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/18/2019 02:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 12/18/2019 03:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/18/2019 03:16 pm
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.

Wait lists/pre-orders are an effective discriminator that Musk has used several times.

I will be interested in seeing how they handle the pricing.  It seems that Musk has always tried to avoid the local maximums that inhibit the global maximum.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/18/2019 03:44 pm
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)
Quote
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.

190x380 is even lower than the last one, right? They must be getting really confident in their deployment. Others would consider 190km reentry.

The filing from Momentus (that they later withdrew) mentioned it being either 220x380 or 289 circular.  Maybe they're still tweaking their options for these rideshares.  All of the sats on these Starlink rideshares will either have propulsion to quickly raise their orbit or be intentionally short-lived.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 12/18/2019 04:06 pm
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.

Oh, I definitely agree and why I made sure to add the qualifier.  Just a reason why I think the "revenue potential" approaches are flawed.

I had two other thoughts about the nature of Starlink as an offering and how it might hold the potential for interesting market opportunities.

However, both involve Price creativity (could still retain a Tesla-style simplicity with just Add-ons).

1)  My internet was out today for about 6 hours.  I could readily imagine eating the cost of the pizza box for a reliable backup.
2)  Internet Security in the future concerns me.  ISTM SpaceX might be able to offer something almost like a "Network" guaranteed to never traverse network that a customer might want to avoid.

So here a pricing model, might be lke:

A)  Base Pricing for connectivity with x GB's and y $/GB after that
B)  Add-on unlimited but throttlable (maybe in such a way as go below a streaming threshold which is the bandwidth hog)
C)  Add-on unlimited
D)  Enterprise or SMB Offering for Dedicated Network Routing/Segregation

Since terrestial internet is such a monopoly-ish utility, if they could get (A) low, they might get a decent sized market for backup connectivity.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 12/19/2019 04:26 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 12/19/2019 07:01 pm
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"!
Gramps
Maybe.  But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
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!

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


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 12/19/2019 09:17 pm
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"!
Gramps
Maybe.  But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
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!

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 12/20/2019 01:37 am
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"!
Gramps
Maybe.  But this is a really large constellation, and the population density at sea should be much lower than even rural terrestrial areas.
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!

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.

I’ve been trying to figure out how they’d integrate the ISL and non ISL birds.

If a ground station is forming a link to a site within its ‘ground bounce cell’ (not sure what to call it) it can go through an older sat. If it’s forming a link overseas it needs an ISL sat. This could be a tricky algorithm as the link has to be initiated before the constellation can ‘decide’ which sat(s) the ground station should use.

I guess the ground station could just grab whatever sat it could and if necessary the sat could bounce to the ground where it would be directed to an ISL sat. Foolproof but any marketing would have to avoid promise of very low latency until all the non ISL sats are retired.

Thinking one step further, low latency could be offered as a high end service with an appropriate fee. If they have ‘classes’ of ground stations they could have a class that would connect only to ISL sats, which in turn give this class priority for connection.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 12/20/2019 02:24 am
The FCC has granted Spacex's Starlink request.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 12/20/2019 02:29 am
The FCC has granted Spacex's Starlink request.

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.

"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.

The FCC said SpaceX can field satellites in 72 rings around the Earth at 550 kilometers — three times as many as the commission approved in April.

The commission rebuffed cubesat-operator Kepler Communications’ request to deny or postpone a decision on the respacing, and said concerns raised by fleet operator SES about signal interference were “moot.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 12/20/2019 03:50 am
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.

Here you go:
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 12/21/2019 03:08 am
Mark Handley has updated his youtube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m05abdGSOxY
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/21/2019 03:14 am
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.
Disagree. They can limit the number of subscribers in an area and set up a waiting list.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Keldor on 12/21/2019 12:48 pm
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.
Disagree. They can limit the number of subscribers in an area and set up a waiting list.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 12/21/2019 01:34 pm
Early @SpaceX #Starlink satellites lack inter-satellite laser links, so how can they provide wide-area low latency comms?  It turns out you can do pretty well using ground relays between the satellites.  Sometimes you can even beat the lasers!

https://twitter.com/MarkJHandley/status/1208227172932112384
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DanielW on 12/21/2019 05:01 pm
Not sure if this is the correct thread, but a key differentiator for Starlink could be returning the internet to a friendlier time by giving every terminal a static /56 ipv6 prefix, with no hosting restrictions.

The fact that charter and comcast don't allow hosting without an over-priced business account is criminal in my mind since it stifles innovation. They also hand out /64 ipv6 prefixes by default which makes sub-netting your home network a pain and basically ensures that we have to keep using ipv4.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/21/2019 05:09 pm
Mark Handley has updated his youtube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m05abdGSOxY

Very informative, as always.  While watching, it occurred to me that Starlink could optimize spectrum and hardware "reuse" to an enormous degree, constrained mostly by the quality and productivity of their custom silicon team.

I don't know that any other megaconstellations have approached this using custom silicon.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/21/2019 08:49 pm



https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/12/20/spacex-poised-to-accelerate-launch-cadence-with-series-of-starlink-missions/

They are planning for 38 launches in 2020 with 25 being starlink.  The fairing catching boats are going be busy. At $5M (×25 flights) a set that is $125m of fairings, huge saving to be had if they can reliably catch fairings.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 12/22/2019 04:58 am
>
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.

StarLink 1 landed on ASDS Of Course I Still Love You.

ASDS Just Read the Instructions, usually supporting the Western Range, recently arrived at Port Canaveral to help with the increased launch rate.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/22/2019 05:02 am
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/12/20/spacex-poised-to-accelerate-launch-cadence-with-series-of-starlink-missions/

Haven't seen this quote before:

Quote
“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.”

She didn't finish the sentence, but I think a reasonable interpretation is they're building 7 satellites per day, which fits the bi-weekly launch cadence.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 12/23/2019 12:10 am
I think if they can avoid early adopter issues Starlink will probably do fairly well at least in the US due to the fact many ISPs have a regional monopoly or duopoly and they would be offering viable alternative to them.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 12/23/2019 08:26 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: intelati on 12/23/2019 08:28 pm
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

PDF Copy
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 12/24/2019 12:00 pm
I just looked into the Starlink webpage.

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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 12/24/2019 01:05 pm
I just looked into the Starlink webpage.

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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/24/2019 01:05 pm
They haven't filed with FCC to change the rest of the ~1200-km orbits yet, but I won't be surprised if they do that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/24/2019 01:07 pm
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.

This is just not true.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 12/24/2019 04:47 pm

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.

Softbank is the largest shareholder 40% of OneWeb and basically owns control of the sales process of all OneWeb capacity. Airbus is a minor investor in OneWeb compared to Softbank.

Airbus is more heavily involved with the satellite manufacturing joint venture for OneWeb. The joint venture is called OneWeb Satellites. But that is different from OneWeb, the constellation owner and operator.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2019/07/oneweb-satellites-and-partners-oneweb-and-airbus-transform-space-industry-with-worlds-first-highvolume-satellite-production-facility-in-florida.html

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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 12/24/2019 05:08 pm
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.

How would that translate to Starlink? Probably cruise ships or selling bandwidth to GoGo, which has tons of contracts already with the airlines. Or selling to the US military, which has a reputation for being a high profit margin customer that is not so sensitive to price.

By focusing on fewer high margin customers, that will buy a lot of bandwidth, SpaceX can maximize profits and revenue while working out their customer service processes ... before offering the service to millions of individual customers.

Or maybe Elon will just open the gates to everyone. It could go either way. In the early stages the phased array antennas will be lower volume though.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/24/2019 05:28 pm
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.

Yes, but on the other hand in the early days of the Model 3 there was far, far more demand than supply at the price point Musk had determined.  Tesla could have easily set a higher price early on, then later reduced the price as they increased supply.  Instead, Musk kept the price low and just kept a long wait list until they could ramp up supply.

So I think the evidence from Tesla is mixed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/25/2019 01:26 am
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.

You can find links to the FCC filings in the Starlink Index Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48981.0)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/25/2019 01:49 am
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 12/25/2019 03:55 am
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:

Quote
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.

Bolding mine, and I just wanted to comment from personal experience that "may be" means you *will* be sharply throttled to barely usable levels as soon as you exceed the soft cap, even though it is advertised as "unlimited."

Back on topic to Starlink, I really hope they can avoid the sort of deceptive advertising which has generated so much bad will toward Viasat and others. I know they are going to have to have a cap, but i hope they will advertise it honestly.

Oh, and Viasat routinely schedules network maintenance during their unlimited hours, if you are a night person and think you can get by with a cheaper plan.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 12/26/2019 04:37 am
54% higher efficiency for Starlink: Network topology design at 27,000 km/hour

Authors:   Debopam Bhattacherjee   ETH Zürich
                Ankit Singla                   ETH Zürich

https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3359989.3365407
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: indaco1 on 12/26/2019 09:26 am
Could they use final user apparatus unused band for relay?

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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 12/26/2019 05:13 pm
Could they use final user apparatus unused band for relay?


Are they going to pay the final user for electricity they used?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RoboGoofers on 12/26/2019 06:26 pm
Could they use final user apparatus unused band for relay?


Are they going to pay the final user for electricity they used?
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 12/26/2019 11:15 pm
In the UK, British Telecom (BT) do exactly that. If you as a broadband ADSL (or fibre) subscriber "opt in" then extra bandwidth on your connection is used to provide BTwifi, to other users from your BT hub, and you gain free access to all BT hotspots including those from other similar "opted in" subscribers. It is extremely convenient.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: billh on 12/27/2019 07:11 pm
Comcast does that as well in my area. My Xfinity router hosts both my own private wifi access point and a public xfinitywifi access point. I think you can opt out, but I figure I benefit from public Xfinity access points in other locations, so why not do my part?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 12/27/2019 08:31 pm
I could also see SpaceX only leasing the receivers/transmitters to the public, and a certain energy use is simply part of the fine print in the contract for you to have one.

Or the end user may be able to opt out of the relay system, if they wish. So few would do it that I don't think it would degrade the whole overmuch.

As another point that could raise objections, IIRC there was some point raised some time back about the possibility of legal issues arising from the use of shared systems (anonymous routing systems like TOR could be running illegal content through your router and you have no way of knowing, or for that matter any public hotspot could be doing the same). Is the middleman libel in these cases?

As far as I remember the legal consensus seemed to be no you are not.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 12/28/2019 03:57 am
End of year update on Starlink: the Launch 0 group remain at 530 km.
Meanwhile, Starlink 46 (M) continues rapid descent and is now in a 261 x 301 km orbit

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1210783355492388864
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 12/28/2019 03:58 am
Here is a zoom in showing the descent of the main Launch 0 group from 550 to 530 km  in early December

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1210783695604310016
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 12/28/2019 03:58 am
Meanwhile the 20 sats of the Launch 1 upper group has just reached 550 km (and so is *above* the Launch 0 group). The launch 1 lower group remains at 350 km. The decay of the deployer rods (green) is now noticeable

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1210784150770176002
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/28/2019 09:52 pm
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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: indaco1 on 12/29/2019 06:57 pm
Modular design and parts commonality with end user transponders/phased arrays could enable economies of scale and cheap ground stations.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 12/30/2019 08:26 am
Any news on the black painted satellite? How effective vs visibility? I don't expect Starlink will tell us about thermal issues.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/30/2019 01:01 pm
SpaceX hasn't said anything more about it that I'm aware of, and it doesn't launch until the end of the week.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 12/30/2019 01:38 pm
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,.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 12/30/2019 10:53 pm
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,.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: groundbound on 12/30/2019 11:12 pm
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,.
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.

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.

There is an additional step that Starlink could do to leverage early adopter amazing peoples to bootstrap their own network.

Subsidize a base station which includes a dual-WAN router (which are cheap) and also reimburse for a business class cable or fiber terrestrial ISP service for the first couple of years. Voila: several thousand redundant moderately capable gateways to the internet at large.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/31/2019 02:35 am
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,.
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.

Whether or not it's worth the trouble is a technical one beyond our scope.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 12/31/2019 03:27 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/31/2019 10:26 am
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.

Again, not enough info.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: indaco1 on 12/31/2019 11:47 am
^^ A ground station to connect multiple satellites could simply use multiple "consumer like" phased arrays transponders that are cheap because mass produced.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 12/31/2019 02:22 pm
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,.
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.

Whether or not it's worth the trouble is a technical one beyond our scope.

Or it's simply a part of the router. My provider doesn't pay me for maintaining a pilot signal in the cable line.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/31/2019 06:06 pm
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,.

1. The amount of power the router consumes won't be noticed by 99.9% of users.

2. and 3. The internet protocol is designed for exactly these kinds of issues.  Routing is adaptive and changes on a packet-by-packet basis.  Lost packets are tolerated.  Many networks in use today have these same issues.  WiFi has an order of magnitude more of these sorts of issues than using customer equipment for Starlink hops would, but most people are pretty happy with WiFi most of the time.

And, really, how often does anyone turn off their router?

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 01/01/2020 07:03 pm
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.

Again, not enough info.
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.

As said:
^^ 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: indaco1 on 01/01/2020 10:06 pm
I've a question about transmission protocol and phased array capability.  Will they enable true packet switching?   Will any single datagram be aimed at a different direction and a specific satellite on a different frequency?

Phased arrays are not mechanical. I assume they'll use a protocol somehow similar to slotted ALOHA and I see no reasons they can't switch to a different satellite for any packet.

If so transceivers will be intrinsically multi datasteam. 

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 01/02/2020 01:59 pm
Which is easier. Building bigger Starlink birds or flying several current size  Starlink birds in formation to increase the bandwidth available in a single orbital node in future upgraded Starlink constellation?

That would be about 17k Starlink satcom birds in orbit if there is 4 Starlink birds in formation at each orbital node for example.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/02/2020 04:05 pm
You can only increase the bandwidth by using more frequencies or using smaller spot beams so you can increase frequency reuse.  Flying multiple copies of the current satellite design together does neither of those (unless the current antennas can widely adjust their beam size).

The user terminals for the first generation constellation are Ku band.  The company run gateways are Ka band.  When coming up with schemes for moving data around keep that in mind.  (They have approval to also use V band, but haven't said much about when that may actually happen.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 01/02/2020 04:19 pm
You do not want to fly satellites in formation.  Extra satellites should add more nodes or more planes.  Among other things this keeps the beams more nearly vertical and closer to the receivers.  So each beam has a smaller footprint on the ground and can be lower powered.  This means frequencies can be reused more.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/02/2020 05:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Confusador on 01/02/2020 09:05 pm
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.

I think you a word or two there.  Are you saying they are planning to, or just might be able to, double their data rate?  Has there been some breakthrough in phased array antenna, or are you speculating in the vein of Moore's Law?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 01/06/2020 01:36 am

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.
Sorry, but this is  impossible ..
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 ).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/06/2020 02:16 am

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.
Sorry, but this is  impossible ..
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 can use many user terminals together. That addresses the asymmetry.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 01/06/2020 03:39 pm

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.
Sorry, but this is  impossible ..
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/06/2020 04:21 pm
The user terminals don't use Ka band.
edit: SpaceX's initial gateways are using dishes.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 01/06/2020 04:46 pm
The user terminals don't use Ka band.
edit: SpaceX's initial gateways are using dishes.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/06/2020 05:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 01/06/2020 08:15 pm
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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 01/06/2020 09:20 pm
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 perfomance
 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..

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 01/06/2020 09:59 pm
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..
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.

But,  main question is diifference in perfomance
 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..
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 01/06/2020 10:28 pm
The superuser comment is interesting, in that it resembles the early days of Skype with their supernode superusers (which they used to bootstrap their VoIP network). Getting early adopters/power users to use a user terminal that has additional modular antenna panels maybe an interesting option as well (use 3 antenna plates to make a crude three sided pyramid for example) to promote ground brounce.

Are there legal restrictions to using user terminals as relays on user bands, aside from legal intercept responsibilities? I vaguely remember there was some moaning and groaning over smallcell/femtocell licensing for compact cellular basestations colocated in a user's home with their wifi cable router waaaay back.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZChris13 on 01/06/2020 10:36 pm
But,  main question is diifference in perfomance
 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..
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 01/06/2020 10:45 pm
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)..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 01/06/2020 11:02 pm
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.

This isn't to say that this is better than high bandwidth inter-satellite links, since there are obvious advantages to inter-satellite links. The original post I was responding to claimed that using user terminals as relays is simply impossible. It is certainly possible with the open (and unanswerable without insider knowledge) question of how capable it would be. There are various ways it could be improved if needed, but whether those are worth it depends on when inter-satellite links will be added to the constellation, and how much this could save in building out relay stations for early subscribers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 01/06/2020 11:11 pm
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 ??
All Satellite Network for  consumer broadband has now Star topology.. Reason is simple and  cheap user terminal 
For Mesh network (usually will be used for Business and Goverment) we need very complicated  terminal..

Is it possible that in Starlink system will be have 2 NMS  (Network Management System)   with 2 type terminals , and both system will use  the same satellites, but different frequences within one beams  for return channel (channel from terminal to satellites)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 01/06/2020 11:11 pm
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)..
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 01/06/2020 11:21 pm
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 ??
Almost certainly mesh (although strict categorization may be an oversimplification.)

A star topology almost doesn't even make sense as the LEO satellites will be constantly moving, changing the possible connections constantly, and therefore negating the possibility of any "simplification" of user terminals.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 01/06/2020 11:22 pm
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
if one places  outside  cities I can send only SMS (need ca 10 kbits) , but in downtown I can load  video in youtube (need 5-6 Mbits)..
But  my handy in both cases registred and work (= talk) in mobile network 
Different here only signal-noise ratio
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/07/2020 02:14 am
We'll start a new thread tomorrow, so the back and fourth can post their closing arguments and we'll all move on with Thread 3, marked with this latest launch. :)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/07/2020 08:49 am
Maybe a Starlink updates thread too Chris?

twitter.com/tobyliiiiiiiiii/status/1214481738610511872

Quote
How many more starlink launches until it's operational for Canada and Northern US?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1214481860459237377

Quote
At least 4
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 01/07/2020 02:01 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 01/07/2020 02:07 pm
SpaceX becomes operator of world’s largest commercial satellite constellation with Starlink launch: https://spacenews.com/spacex-becomes-operator-of-worlds-largest-commercial-satellite-constellation-with-starlink-launch/.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/07/2020 03:05 pm
Is the first test batch of satellites actually usable as part of the operational network or should only the last two batches be counted from an operational perspective?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/07/2020 03:13 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1214548764054216704

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/07/2020 06:33 pm
Maybe a Starlink updates thread too Chris?

twitter.com/tobyliiiiiiiiii/status/1214481738610511872

Quote
How many more starlink launches until it's operational for Canada and Northern US?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1214481860459237377

Quote
At 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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 01/07/2020 09:34 pm
Latest @SpaceX ephemerides are available for 57 of the 60 latest #Starlink satellites, including STARLINK-1130 (DARKSAT):

https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1214562257889136645
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cebri on 01/08/2020 10:57 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: magnemoe on 01/08/2020 11:14 am
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 01/08/2020 12:36 pm
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 haven't seen any updates so far. Heavens-Above doesn't even have them loaded yet.

https://www.heavens-above.com/SatInfo.aspx?satid=71066
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Comga on 01/08/2020 01:18 pm
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.

“Patience, Grasshopper”
Of course SpaceX has measured the reflectivity in the lab.
It may be too early to disambiguate the satellites.  When I saw the train a day after the 0.9 launch, they formed a gray streak in the sky. Individual satellites were only apparent when they glinted, but the glints weren’t totally regular, indicating that their attitudes or positions had yet to settle.
We may see some indication soon, but don’t set your hopes too high. Suppressing surface reflectivity in space is particularly difficult. 
(People should resist posting “Why don’t they just...?”  Paint, anodize, etching, carbon nanotubes, etc. have all been tried.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 01/08/2020 01:55 pm
Constructive conversations yesterday with SpaceX reps here at #AAS235. Pleased to see they have followed through on previous convos by  helping TS get orbits for the new batch and identifying which one (Starlink 1130) is the Black Starlink! Still lots of concerns of course.

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1214809025801375744
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Elvis in Space on 01/08/2020 02:43 pm

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.

Something anecdotal to add - I have a friend in rural Arkansas who has been managing business over a more traditional 3mb satellite connection. He's a smart guy but hardly a space or technology aware kind of person. He has been contacting me regularly for months to get my input on how soon I think Starlink might become reality. I expect there are a good many like him that are chomping at the bit for this.

I also wonder if Elon might be creating his own customer base with thousands of Tesla vehicles.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tuts36 on 01/08/2020 03:09 pm
This has probably been said before elsewhere, but I personally will jump at the chance to try Starlink the moment it becomes available for multiple reasons beyond simple economics & practicality:

1.  I know that my money is going towards a space program that is driven to put a sustainable human presence on Mars.  I wish I could feel the same way about my tax dollars.

2.  It pokes a finger in the eye of the entitled, established regional monopoly / duopoly internet providers.  I will not shed a single tear for any of them.

Honestly I would pay a lot more than I do now just for either of these opportunities, even knowing there will be inevitable kinks & growing pains as SpaceX pushes into a market that is completely new to them.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/08/2020 05:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 01/08/2020 05:11 pm
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.
A rather obvious point, and probably frequently repeated:
There must be very many people and businesses currently unable to operate how they want to, in the locations they would like to be in. Many more people would work from home, even in remote locations if good connectivity was available. IMO Starlink, alongside everyone taking Skype and Zoom etc for granted now, will see a boom in home working, even allowing more people to live further from "the office" as they will commute infrequently. It will create/expand this market.
Edit:Spelling
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: BunkerTheHusky on 01/08/2020 05:43 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 01/08/2020 06:33 pm
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

These Starlink launches are the heaviest payloads to date. 
Also the new larger fairings would be heavier and more aerodynamic drag than the current fairing. 
Also Starlink launches will help build DOD confidence with the new fairing. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/08/2020 07:28 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1215004858173935616

Quote
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

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1215004819234025472

Quote
Patricia Cooper from SpaceX : value your science and committed not to impede it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/08/2020 08:12 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1215006140339089408

Quote
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

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1215007249984151552

Quote
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

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1215008899369062400

Quote
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

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1215021741010907136

Quote
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

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1215022781043068928

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/08/2020 11:40 pm
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
Quote
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].
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 01/08/2020 11:50 pm
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/09/2020 03:55 am
Someone who claims to be a phased array designer made some comments on possible ground terminal antenna design on reddit (https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/elh575/elonmusk_looks_like_a_thin_flat_round_ufo_on_a/fditblz/):

Quote from: The_user_of
Quote from: peterabbit456
Quote from: The_user_of
I 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&deg; cone vs a 120, 150, or 170&deg; 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.

and

Quote from: The_user_of
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 :)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 01/09/2020 05:41 am
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: snotis on 01/09/2020 08:07 am
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...

I believe they will go down to 25 degrees only during the initial testing and usage - but will transition to 40 degrees once the main service starts.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 01/09/2020 02:29 pm
Maybe a Starlink updates thread too Chris?

twitter.com/tobyliiiiiiiiii/status/1214481738610511872

Quote
How many more starlink launches until it's operational for Canada and Northern US?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1214481860459237377

Quote
At 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.

A Superbowl ad might not be a bad idea. Let the customers also know that all profits go towards human spaceflight.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 01/09/2020 02:37 pm
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
Quote
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].
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: pietro on 01/09/2020 02:44 pm
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 :).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cebri on 01/09/2020 03:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 01/09/2020 03:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cebri on 01/09/2020 04:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tulse on 01/09/2020 05:05 pm
SpaceX doesn't have any experience with selling consumer devices that need complex installation, but Tesla does (with its Powerwalls and solar panels).  I realize that Elon's companies are separate, but at the very least it suggests that Musk knows how to build that expertise.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 01/09/2020 05:23 pm
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.

In the early days of Satellite TV (where the dishes were receive only) you could self install, or pay the extra for a technician. Satellite internet was more complicated, as the fact that the dish transmits as well as receives apparently required a licensed tech to install.

I've questioned before whether user installs for Starlink would be prohibited due to the same type of regulation, but it certainly sounds like (from Elon's recent tweet) that a user install will be an option -- perhaps the fact that the device is self aiming removes the regulatory need for a certified installer.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 01/09/2020 06:07 pm
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 modern semi’s have fiberglass toppers so yes, should not be a problem.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 01/09/2020 09:22 pm
Quote from: envy887 link=topic=48297.msg2033625 ;) #msg2033625 date=1578588621
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.

Totally uninformed opinion: It will be mix n match.

In the US the regulatory environment is relatively benign. Underserved rural areas and small towns being low hanging fruit with high unemployment. Here in Kansas there are plenty of tech savvy workers and ex military that would kill for a chance to subcontract as Larry the StarLink guy. Less than $1000 will get everything needed except an O-scope, van, ladders and insurance. I know people who did WiFi ISP’s back in the day.

It’s not er, uh, rocket science. With some smart connector design and a little thought on inexpensive TDR’s and an O-scope substitute, StarLink could set up a franchise and finance program for just this market. That takes care of tech support and customer service. If Elon’s interested I could easily set this up. I know both the customer and the franchisee end of the business.  ;)

Other regulatory environments are another story. Each will be a different set of issues. As the hurdles get higher local ISP’s are more attractive. The same holds for high population density/tall building areas of the US.

As coverage expands it can all run in parallel.

Phil

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 01/09/2020 10:57 pm
Quick list of SpaceX UFO antenna patent applications

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180241122A1/

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190252796A1/

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190252801A1/

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190252774A1/

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190252755A1/


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/10/2020 03:37 am
Quick list of SpaceX UFO antenna patent applications

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180241122A1/

This was assigned to Bank of America in 2018 then assigned back to SpaceX in 2019, I guess it was used as collateral for the $250M loan.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 01/12/2020 04:26 am
Starlink-46 (44246) reached a minimum altitude of 212 x 274 km on Jan 6. I expected SpaceX to deorbit it, but instead they've started to raise its orbit again and it is now back at 215 x 316 km.

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1216194149071970304
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 01/12/2020 04:27 am
Meanwhile, on Dec 28, SpaceX began to lower 12 of the V0.9 satellites in the 530 km orbit.  34 of the V0.9 satellites remain at the higher altitude.

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1216195872544956417
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 01/12/2020 04:28 am
Here is an updated altitude vs time plot for the 60 sats of the Starlink V1.0 Batch 1 (Launch 1) set. 20 sats (blue) at 550 km. 20 sats (magenta) climbing at 400 km, 20 sats *cyan) still at 350 km. 2 of 4 deployment rods (green) now reentered.

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1216201449618726913
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 01/12/2020 04:30 am
What's happening here: at the 350 km altitude the orbital plane precesses at a different speed from the 550 km orbits. So they are delaying orbit raising  until the sats get to the desired planes, thus filling 3  orbital planes with one launch

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1216201828150513664
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 01/12/2020 04:31 am
For completeness, here is data on the new launch so far, based on data provided on @TSKelso 's website http://celestrak.com   (Red: the Black Starlink, as I call it; TS calls it Darksat)


https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1216204441306779649
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: indaco1 on 01/12/2020 07:33 pm
The one that doesn't climb is a defective satellite or deployment rods?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ludus on 01/12/2020 11:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 01/12/2020 11:39 pm
Interesting that in January 2015, Musk said that Starlink would go live in about five years.  And here we are five years later.  Musk is often criticized for the accuracy of his timelines, but it appears that they are very on time on this project.

Also note that the cost appears to be way below originally envisioned (said $10 - $15 billion for the first 4,000).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHeZHyOnsm4

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 01/13/2020 06:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 01/13/2020 08:28 pm
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.

At their viewer number they could *sell* advertising slots at prime time rates. Even the most uninteresting launches get hundreds of thousands of viewers. Crew launches will be in the millions, not to mention on every news channel.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 01/13/2020 10:58 pm
The one that doesn't climb is a defective satellite or deployment rods?

It's a satellite experiencing issues. There are no rods in that graph as it's derived from the satellite positioning data SpaceX shared with Celestrak.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 01/14/2020 06:08 am
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...

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 01/14/2020 07:36 am
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.

I will buy the service the moment it becomes available in Germany. We are at 52N, so its just about possible with Starlink. My parents in law are located just 30 miles out of Berlin, in a rural area and internet is close to not available there. They dont need it but when I visit, its always a hassle. They are limited to about 300 MB per month before the bandwidth get throttled to modem speed. Its ridiculous. I can just about read the forum there for a week. I dont care if it is patchy at the start, I want to support SpaceX to get people to Mars, so far there is nothing I can do but with this service coming online, its my ticket to help them. If the service is good, word will spread quickly. Even though the population density in rural areas is low, its still many many people in total that all lack adequate internet service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cuddihy on 01/14/2020 10:15 am
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/1214548764054216704

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: king1999 on 01/14/2020 12:49 pm
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/1214548764054216704

Quote
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.

Don't think the motors are continuously moving. "self-adjust optimal angle" probably means the motors move during initial startup only. It is to simplify the installation process.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 01/14/2020 02:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 01/14/2020 05:39 pm
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.

It may not just level. That would be easy with simple spirit levels. It may optimize with consideration of obstacles.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/14/2020 07:16 pm
twitter.com/alejandro_debh/status/1217169649072295936

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1217175688228159488

Quote
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.

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1217178315540140032

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 01/15/2020 01:00 am
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.

Many car/RV satellite television antennas currently offered in a pizzabox format do as you describe, using a motor to slew the plate. But for that application they are watching a single sat that isn't moving much.

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.

The midbody blocking the rear view sector may be problematic, but if Tesla was willing to replace the frunk lid, replacing the trunk lid also is on the table and would allow full coverage.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 01/15/2020 02:34 pm
@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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/15/2020 04:03 pm
@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

7 per day, like most manufacturing I'd assume that the production facility would be running 7 days a week.

Maybe they aren't right now, maybe they are learning to walk/run then Elon will get them into a full on sprint.

7 per day at 7 days a week is 210 per month. 

So we could be close to a 10 day launch cadence. 

This is going to be pretty amazing to watch as this matures and Starlink pushes the F9 architecture.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 01/15/2020 09:23 pm
Not Starlink specific, but an informative talk about phased arrays to get familiar with how the satellites and base stations work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytBmoL2wZLw
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/17/2020 02:55 am
https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1218018059077603329

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Comga on 01/17/2020 04:37 am
https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1218018059077603329

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JBF on 01/17/2020 07:05 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 01/17/2020 07:39 am
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.
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.

I assume the "back" is some sort of typo/miscommunication, but the point that the solar array is more visible due to orientation remains true. I haven't actually figured out exactly why that would be the case, maybe even the edge on area of the solar array is significant, and tilting forward helps, or tilting forward is needed to optimally align the ion engine thrust which ideally goes through the center of mass including the solar array. Actually, if the edge on area is significant that would be partially lit in a general low drag orientation, but not in normal operation, and that could be what is meant by "back."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 01/17/2020 08:00 am
Not Starlink specific, but an informative talk about phased arrays to get familiar with how the satellites and base stations work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytBmoL2wZLw
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/17/2020 08:29 am

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RoboGoofers on 01/17/2020 08:48 pm
ultimately even if the court found against the FCC it would only mean that the blanket waiver that the FCC uses could just be codified into law. I'd guess that there's enough influence from aerospace companies that they could get something passed that says that NEPA doesn't apply to space.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Comga on 01/18/2020 01:43 am

Quote
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.

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. ;)  )
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 01/19/2020 08:46 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/19/2020 09:20 pm
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?

Using higher orbits allows fewer satellites to get the same geographical coverage (although using more satellites at lower altitudes gives you more overall bandwidth from higher frequency reuse.)  It wouldn't be surprising if SpaceX requests permission to lower more of the satellites but they haven't done it yet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/20/2020 08:39 am

Quote
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.

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. ;)  )

Businesslike explanation != Snark
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 01/21/2020 03:31 am
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 01/21/2020 03:43 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 01/21/2020 07:27 am
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:

-Countries with 50-90+% internet availability still need better coverage, even the US does for remote areas
-Internet access does not always equal high speed internet
-The predicted cost number is purely made up, SpaceX has not provided actual data yet
-Regional pricing: the only marginal cost for more subscribers in undersubscribed regions is pretty much the antenna. It is not just a nice humanitarian thing, but a logical business thing to drop prices in those areas.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 01/21/2020 08:13 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 01/21/2020 08:59 am
A single Starlink connection with wifi should be good for dozens of people to share the cost.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 01/21/2020 01:43 pm
The @SpaceX #Starlink constellation is growing fast! Read how to keep up with it in our latest post:

https://twitter.com/LeoLabs_Space/status/1219613317632872448
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jak Kennedy on 01/21/2020 02:41 pm
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?

Just someone ignorant about the world, sitting behind his keyboard who has probably no firsthand knowledge of these countries he types about. I see many people around me with better smartphones than I have and they might only be making $200-300 a month. The world wants and needs to be connected and although I love astronomy I will make a wag guess that the majority of the ‘poor’ of the world don’t give a s#@t about astronomy and would rather be connected.

Sent from central Honduras.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 01/21/2020 03:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: butters on 01/21/2020 04:15 pm
Investing in a Starlink terminal and reselling wifi by the hour is attainable entrepreneurship in developing countries. Business models like this are thriving in nations like Cuba which have underinvested in traditional Internet infrastructure. Starlink won't give everybody in the developing world 24/7 fixed broadband anytime soon, but it will make connectivity more affordable by the hour, and it will create opportunities for thousands of people around the world to lift themselves out of poverty by becoming the local Internet entrepreneur in their neighborhood. It will interesting to see what kinds of financing programs are available, given the humanitarian angle and the relatively high likelihood of repayment.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 01/21/2020 06:19 pm
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.

Absolutely - I'm not sure how many people know this, but many researchers looking at the developing world believe that mobile phones (and in general mobile communications/Internet) have been and will be a critical part of economic growth in many developing countries. As it turns out, when your country has absolutely awful large scale, wired infrastructure--no landline, no reliable power, etc.--it is far easier to deploy wireless infrastructure to connect people than it is to hope the government can put together the money to build large scale infrastructure. Solar cellphone charging stations and other distributed solutions are quite common. In some developing countries it is hardly uncommon to have a mobile phone before you have reliable power or plumbing.

Here, a large part of our time spent on the Internet is for entertainment and arguably optional activities, like posting on a forum about rockets. It's not quite the same in the developing world. I can't remember the specifics, but someone who worked as a researcher in an African country gave me a few examples once. Many people live in rural areas where the nearest trading town is hours away. If you sell crops or animals or other goods, you often want to communicate in advance with buyers so that you can meet with them in town, instead of wasting a few hours every day going to town and hoping you can catch a buyer. Given that *there aren't even landlines* the introduction of cellphones were critical to making a lot of basic economic activities much more efficient. Banks also aren't exactly accessible in many of the poorer developing countries, and mobile payments have had an enormous impact as well (imagine if you couldn't use a bank and had to keep money safe at home in a box somewhere...)

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...)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 01/21/2020 08:40 pm

...

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...)

Cell phone towers and internet (mobile or fixed) require a backbone connection.   Maintaining a WIRED backbone connection in the third world is, ah, challenging.

SL will provide the opportunity to setup more economically viable cellphone towers and provide more Internet gateways compared to just wired connections.

The same is true in rural America, Canada, etc. etc.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: indaco1 on 01/21/2020 11:16 pm
I agree, most of end users in marginal areas will not even know they are using Starlink.

They will pay a price tailored to their puchase power to a telecom to connect a mobile device to a 4G & 5G LTE Base Station coupled with a Starlink station on the same tower. Not wifi because billing and range.

This could change the life of many people.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 01/21/2020 11:16 pm
This is propaganda (it's from a cellphone association) and it's from 2012. But it makes thirtyone's point nicely.

https://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/gsma-deloitte-impact-mobile-telephony-economic-growth.pdf

I used the search phrase "economic impact of mobile phones on developing countries" ... LOTS of hits. Spot checked, they are saying the same thing. A bit of internet goes a LONG way to making life better if you live on 1.50 a day.

c.f. this is why One Laptop Per Child got started (and blown past, overcome by events) and it's why there was an effort to put all of Wikipedia on a CD....

Our tweeter Victor C. didn't do their research.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/22/2020 12:16 am
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 think this contributes to the discussion and does prompt a discussion on pricing in different markets.

Affordable internet is going to be revolution, we will see how far Starlink goes and how many users and billions it generates in a few years.

It’s possible that like other EM products he offers service cheaply with not much profit, like other EM products.

I’m not suggesting these numbers are accurate, likely too high and too low, but Would SpaceX/EM prefer $100 a month from 2 million customers or $10 a month from 20 million customers? 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 01/22/2020 12:19 am
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

Update:

It looks like Gilat Satellite Networks is being bought out by a larger player.
Also, it was discussed on past conference calls that SpaceX is testing Gilat Satellite Networks equipment for use with Starlink.

I am hoping that the buyout does not happen. Gilat has a long way it could run as a stock if it stays out there and grows more in this market.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3532862-gilat-satellite-in-talks-to-be-acquired-25-premium

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/.premium-satellite-gear-maker-gilat-said-to-be-close-to-being-sold-to-overseas-buyer-for-580-1.8414249

Disclosure: I purchased shares in GILT back then when this was first brought up.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/22/2020 12:55 am
There are a few new threads for Starlink that should help break up the discussion into smaller chunks.  While the overall amount of traffic in this thread is manageable, it can be nearly impossible to find the relevant prior discussion when a subject arises.  I may still add one or two more threads.  The new threads so far are:

Starlink : On Orbit Satellite Tracking / Maneuvers (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.0)
Starlink : Hardware Design / Manufacturing (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49938.0)
Starlink : Markets and Marketing (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49937.0)

All of these links can be found in the Starlink Index Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48981.0), which is now pinned at the top of the SpaceX General Section.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gaballard on 01/22/2020 06:06 am
Is it maybe time for a dedicated Starlink forum?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: matthewkantar on 01/22/2020 01:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 01/22/2020 01:48 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 01/22/2020 01:58 pm
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JamesH65 on 01/22/2020 02:30 pm
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.
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.

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.

I think that is an over optimistic timescale for Starship.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: intelati on 01/22/2020 02:35 pm
Is it maybe time for a dedicated Starlink forum?

I think with gongora's addition the time is near.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 01/24/2020 05:32 pm
Can Space Traffic Control Handle The Volume Of Private Launches?

January 23, 20205:02 AM ET

https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1220766599424004096
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 01/25/2020 05:33 pm
Jonathan McDowell on darkened satellites in the next batch: "My sense from talking with them at AAS was that we don't expect more experimental ones in the near term. The plan is to do measurements on this one to improve their reflectivity models and then do engineering on the ground for a bit - changes won't make it into future sats for some months, next few batches will be unchanged."

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1220743083672985602
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 01/25/2020 08:13 pm
Air Force test of an AC-130 connected to Starlink constellation successful

The Air Force tested its Advanced Battle Management System. Here’s what worked, and what didn’t.

By: Valerie Insinna    3 days ago

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/01/22/the-us-air-force-tested-its-advanced-battle-management-system-heres-what-worked-and-what-didnt/?utm_source=clavis
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: crandles57 on 01/27/2020 03:42 pm
Two starlink launches in Feb with starlinkV1.0-L3 on 28th Jan from SLC-40 and then March 1st SLC-40 launch of CRS-20  (4 launches in 34 days) is looking to be getting rather tight / weather likely makes impossible. Will they use LC-39A to launch a starlink mission or two?

If they are aiming for 3 per month then weather restricting them to just 1 in February seems on the disappointing side. Maybe 5th on March 1st is fairer presentation of this and doesn't sound so bad.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/27/2020 04:13 pm
The last FCC permit they filed for a Starlink launch said it would go from either LC-39A or SLC-40, so it seems they'll start using both now.  There's nothing really special flying from 39A now until the DM-2 flight.  Four launches in five weeks should be possible, the bad weather won't last forever.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: francesco nicoli on 02/01/2020 11:36 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 02/01/2020 11:51 am
The fairing is the limiting factor and both use the same fairing.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/05/2020 05:33 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 02/05/2020 07:09 pm
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)


Wow, they could design and mostly build a big rocket with that coin and timeline ;D
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/06/2020 05:02 pm
Quote
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.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/spacex-likely-to-spin-off-starlink-business-and-pursue-an-ipo
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 02/06/2020 05:24 pm
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.

[Edit] or “several years” as per below, lol
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 02/06/2020 05:51 pm
Quote
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.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/spacex-likely-to-spin-off-starlink-business-and-pursue-an-ipo
was this a part of her speech or the answer to a question. The difference is fundamental.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/06/2020 06:02 pm
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 02/07/2020 02:54 am
RT @DougIPComm: Less that particular comment [by @greg_wyler]. But there was shade thrown about Starlink currently lacking the ability to provide connectivity over the oceans cuz there ain't no place to ground bounce. Not good for maritime or aviation..

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1225571472321785857
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/07/2020 03:55 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 02/07/2020 04:09 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 02/07/2020 04:26 am
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.
A simple low gain  stub should be enough for that. Command and control shouldn't be that much data.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/07/2020 04:53 am
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.

They do look a lot like this:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/5/50/Superlaser2.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20111104205236
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/07/2020 01:18 pm
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.

May be this Ka band antenna for  transmission  between  GateWay and Satellite...
Transmission between user terminal and satellite will be in Ku band
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: northstar on 02/07/2020 05:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/07/2020 05:21 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 02/07/2020 05:53 pm
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?

Yes, and they haven't.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: acsawdey on 02/07/2020 06:01 pm
On the subject of inter-satellite links, apparently OneWeb is saying that some governments won't like the fact that Starlink has them?

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1225843620277825549
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jak Kennedy on 02/07/2020 06:24 pm
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

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/07/2020 06:25 pm
On the subject of inter-satellite links, apparently OneWeb is saying that some governments won't like the fact that Starlink has them?

Quote
.@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

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.  Sure, they might get some wins in some places playing the anti-American card or with oppressive regimes with the no-intersatellite links card.  But the same could be said by any foreign competitor of other big American tech companies such as Google and Facebook.  They're both American and they're both disliked by oppressive regimes that want to own the information in their countries.  And that hurts them in China, but Google and Facebook do OK for themselves in the rest of the world none the less.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/07/2020 06:27 pm
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

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/07/2020 07:07 pm
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.

OneWeb has claimed all sorts of nonsense, sometimes tripping over their own feet in the process.  Thankfully, so far, regulators and the market in the first world have seen through it.

Further, OneWeb has hardly met a messy and complicated relationship that it didn't love.  Investors, suppliers, marketers, launch service providers, governments, oligarchs, and local carriers.  It will take them decades to extricate themselves from all of this.  Just ask Iridium.

As to the US domicile, I wonder why they think having UK domicile will be any better.  It sure won't help with the largest natural customer:  the US government.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 02/07/2020 07:07 pm
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.

What much else could they have?  The SpaceX technical moat (small sats, iteratively improved, ridiculous lauch cadence, and lofted at internal cost) has got a lot of gators in it.   
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 02/07/2020 07:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 02/07/2020 07:13 pm
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.

^^ (jak)   It's not surprising at all.  Starlink will be used to fund Starship and Mars.  That's what going public will do.  You sort of need to consider the big picture.  Going public allows you to claim a Market Cap at big multiples to earnings which you can monetize now.  People in a few years will want a bite at Space and Starlink will be juicy.  SpaceX sells off a portion, retains the lion's share of shares to keep the float manageable.  Let the stock market do that Multiple Magic and SpaceX can let shares loose as and when needed to grab large tranches of capital for their Mars ambitions.

^ (CW) Going public allows you to fund things with leverage.   Market Cap as opposed to Cash Flow.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/07/2020 07:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 02/07/2020 07:25 pm
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.

I think you misread jak's post...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/07/2020 07:31 pm
I'm not surprised SpaceX won't spin out Starlink for a few years at least.  I wouldn't if I were them as long as I could avoid it.

The reason is that public markets won't necessarily share SpaceX's internal confidence in the potential of Starlink.  I'd guess that Musk and others high up in SpaceX believe Starlink will be very, very valuable.  To outsiders, there's probably more skepticism.  So it makes sense for SpaceX to hold onto full ownership for a few years until they've proven just how valuable it really is by making a huge amount of revenue.  Then they can sell the same shares for much more money.

Musk's recent experiences with Tesla are just going to encourage him to think that way.  He's going to see Tesla's history over the last decade as evidence that markets don't appreciate the potential of the businesses he can build and won't fairly value them until quite a late stage, when he's actually generating huge revenue and making profits from them.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 02/07/2020 10:37 pm
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.
Musk's a patient man, relatively speaking.

Revenue from SL will be steady, and he can do debt if he needs cash upfront.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/08/2020 12:29 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/08/2020 01:24 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: groundbound on 02/08/2020 02:19 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/08/2020 02:28 am
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.

Regarding your first point - The initial capital outlays to get to Mars will be dwarfed by the ongoing cost of sustaining and expanding the Mars colony. So an IPO to fund an initial Mars base would be a case of getting a relatively small amount of cash now (say a few tens of billions) but giving up hundreds of billions in profit share over the next couple of decades. Money that would still have been used - and desperately needed - to keep Starships flying to Mars and expanding the infrastructure of the settlement.

Regarding your second point: Fully agree that this would make sense. I was thinking along the same lines. Giving up 40% of Starlink’s future profit stream of tens of billions a year would be worth it if it provided the capital to become the first mover and dominant player in e.g the asteroid mining industry with its potential trillion dollar annual income stream.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 02/08/2020 03:23 am
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:

Quote
Shotwell said that service will be “less than what you are paying now for about five to 10 times the speed you are getting.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 02/08/2020 04:14 am
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/08/2020 02:44 pm
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:

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 02/08/2020 03:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/08/2020 04:34 pm
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.

They could set it up as a separate, but wholly owned, subsidiary. That way they could earn 100% of the dividends while still keeping it separate from their launch business.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 02/08/2020 05:09 pm
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.

On one hand it would be a utility, but if you look at it as a subset of something larger it becomes part of core operational capabilities. Projecting out, SX needs comms in transit, on Luna, on mars. In the asteroids...

The LSST getting ready to come on line figures to be pumping 1.28 petabytes per year into fiber. As observational astronomy moves more fully off the surface the data needs will be stunning.

They will need a lot of money for however long it takes Mars to stand on its own financial feet. SL can well be the cash flow they need and selling stock can fill cash flow holes bit I doubt SX will yield control without a lot of kicking and screaming.

I expect future monopoly boards to ditch the railroad for space transport and the electric utility for com sats.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: groundbound on 02/08/2020 06:07 pm
One other possibility for their motivation for spinning Starlink out occurs to me. This is a speculation on what SpaceX thinks, not on any actual reality.

Looking at the market cap of Tesla recently,  allowing the unwashed masses to invest in your company may result in a higher valuation than just having potential bondholders or private investors decide the value. But if the market is putting a high value on your stock, it is likely that potential debt holders will follow along, at least somewhat.

So if Starlink still has some capital needs, and SpaceX does also, spinning Starlink out as a 90% owned subsidiary (or something) and floating the rest as stock fills both needs. Starlink gets bucks to invest, and SpaceX gets an umpty-bajillion dollar asset on its books to impress bondholders when it needs to borrow money to tide it over a couple of lean years.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 02/08/2020 06:49 pm
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:

Quote
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.

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.


I certainly hope you are correct in your prediction.   For two reasons: 

1) Comcast needs to be slaughtered in the marketplace

2) SX will benefit and put the funds to good use "Occupying Mars"

I'm dubious that Starlink will find that kind of success, even though I think they will take a respectable slice fairly quickly.   
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mme on 02/08/2020 07:25 pm
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

Quote
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.

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.
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.

Musk rarely sells stocks when he has a choice. He uses them as collateral for low interest loans. As long as the stock accrues value faster than the interest rate on the loan it's practically free money. Or at least the amount of shares "spent" by the end of the loan is much less than would have been upfront.

tl;dr

It turns Starlink into a less than 0% credit card for SpaceX.

edit: sub-sized? Seriously Siri?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 02/08/2020 07:35 pm
Somebody needs to ask EM what expected Starlink data rates are. I doubt there will be an answer as that could help competitors.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 02/08/2020 07:53 pm
Somebody needs to ask EM what expected Starlink data rates are. I doubt there will be an answer as that could help competitors.

I don't have the reference at hand but I specifically recall hearing it being Gigabit-class.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 02/08/2020 11:01 pm
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 ;)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/09/2020 07:45 am
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

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 02/09/2020 04:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 02/09/2020 07:01 pm
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 02/09/2020 07:51 pm
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)

Quote
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.

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.

Market cap and cash flow are two different things. For all of SL’s economies from inexpensive launch and sat mass production it will still have heavy expenses until it hits something resembling steady state.

Musk may at some point need funds beyond his immediate capabilities. He’s a smart man. Bringing up the possibility of going public may be just one of the options. It may also be a way of testing the waters. Options are good.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 02/09/2020 09:11 pm
...
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.

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 $.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 02/09/2020 09:44 pm
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...

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?"

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, ...).

Other potentially large market is tele-workers; not as amenable to the same solutions as broadcast, but expect there is a very lucrative market there.  Anecdotally can attest to many problems doing VOIP or video conferencing with off-shore teams because the current land-line infrastructure sucks (unless you are willing to pay serious $$$).

Expect that if the major players in those markets (e.g., WebEx, Zoom...) as well as enterprises could get a better ride on Starlink, they would jump in a heartbeat.  Major $$$ waiting to be had--which I'm sure has not escaped the folks at Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: philw1776 on 02/10/2020 01:25 pm
...
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.

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 $.

Excellent.
SpaceX is testing the investment size scale waters about a Starlink subsidiary IPO.  I believe, it's a signal to wealthy private investors to jump into Starlink before a public IPO raises the cost per share.  If so, SpaceX will initially spin off Starlink privately first and raise substantial cash sooner than an IPO.  I'm not experienced enough about private companies to know if this could already be happening without us public knowing.
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 02/10/2020 01:56 pm
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?"

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, ...).
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.

Actually, it might be that the biggest thing that does is help with surge capacity when e.g. The Mandalorian Season 2 starts streaming, more than optimizing steady-state consumption which is more likely to be random.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: uhuznaa on 02/10/2020 02:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/10/2020 02:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/10/2020 03:24 pm
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 have no doubt they are cash constrained. Falcon has launched something like 80 times. Even at $80m average launch price (which is high) thats around $6-7bn launch revenue over SpaceX’s lifetime. Of course there are some billions to add for Dragon development and Commercial Crew, but even so, even $10bn is not much considering their massive expenditure on salaries, capital projects etc.

They are likely funding initial Starlink launches from recent capital raises, but that gave them hundreds of millions rather than billions of dollars to work with. That must be close to running out.

My argument is that Elon should try and fund as much with debt as possible, rather than giving away shares cheaply now, which could be worth ten times as much (or more) in future.

They just need to cross the crucial point of Starlink becoming self funding. Then the floodgates will open. The question is how long to get to that point?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 02/10/2020 03:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/10/2020 03:56 pm
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.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Elon said recently - in the Third Row podcast, I think - that he has about a billion dollars in personal debt against Tesla shares which he has used to fund SpaceX etc.  I suspect Elon’s main personal expenditure has been to buy around 50% of any new SpaceX share offerings, to ensure his personal stake remains above 50%.

That still effectively funds the company, but in a way that brings in 1 outside investor dollar for every dollar that Elon contributes, thus doubling the money raised while maintaining his shareholding.

But that was in SpaceX itself. Not sure he would do the same with a Starlink subsidiary,  as long as SpaceX remains the controlling shareholder. Elon is not that liquid. However, the big unknown is Tesla. If its value keeps rocketing skywards, Elon could fund Starlink AND Starship himself without needing outside investors. That would be first prize.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/10/2020 04:10 pm
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.


Also, you have to ignore the statements from Elon that margin on 1.0 was good and prices could go lower, but 1.1 has even better margins.

I also would like to see a statement countering that.  And that didn't account for the 1st stage reuse that is going on.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: daj24 on 02/10/2020 04:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 02/10/2020 04:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/10/2020 04:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Razvan on 02/10/2020 05:14 pm
I just read about Sun Orbiter launch and the paint ESA used for thermal shield, named "material Enbio" made of calcium phosphate resulted from animal bone calcination and given the special features of this material I was thinking, if not too expensive, it could be used for painting black the starlink sats.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 02/10/2020 05:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 02/10/2020 05:38 pm
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.
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.

"Nah, I just told them to hook the internet service up to the grain bins." says it all. A farmer had bought some land with an old house site on it. He installed 4 large grain bins, and requested internet for it. He had them route the fiber to the control shack for the gain bins, not the house or barn. On the side of one of the bins is a dish antenna pointing at the silo by his home. It's a 17 mile link. He now has respectable internet speeds at home so he can get more timely commodity reports.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 02/10/2020 06:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 02/10/2020 07:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 02/10/2020 07:44 pm
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.
I wouldn't count on Starship happening in the timeframe of the initial deployment of Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 02/10/2020 08:07 pm
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.

The fastest pad turnaround we've seen is two weeks plus weather delays.  And there will be other missions to launch from SLC-40.  So Starlink missions will fill in gaps in the schedule. 
I wonder what the current record for consecutive from a single launch pad is? 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 02/10/2020 10:21 pm
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.
I wouldn't count on Starship happening in the timeframe of the initial deployment of Starlink.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/10/2020 10:28 pm
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.

The number 35 is for all launches in 2020.  Starlink is 24.  So Starlink is on a steady one-every-two-weeks schedule and the others show up when the payloads are ready.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 02/11/2020 12:10 am
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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 02/11/2020 07:12 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 02/11/2020 07:46 am
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.
I have no real knowledge of the details... however as seems generally understood:

SX leased 39A for some 20 years... and its generally down to them what they launch there. Keeping is just for Dragon, is probably more about doing everything possible to guarantee success of Dragon2, (DM2) said to be the most critical flight in SX's history.

As for launches at 40, SX/EM has always talked about a 24 hour turn-around of boosters. Less said on launchpads, but since launch is impossible without a pad, it must be assumed the goal is the same for a pad! It follows that SX should have been designing the pad for quick turn around..... I bet we'll see some significant records broken here. After all a launch after a scrub is a non issue... so just how much damage is caused, and replacement needed by a launch? And of course the TE can be worked on horizontal .... in the hanger with overhead cranes etc, so the path towards 24 - 48 hours is probably coming to fruition!!!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: launchwatcher on 02/11/2020 02:45 pm
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,
most cloud providers generally charge for egress traffic while giving you inbound traffic for free.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 02/11/2020 04:07 pm
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.

The Air Space Force runs the launch range, it doesn't really matter which pad they're launching from.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 02/11/2020 06:21 pm
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.
I wouldn't count on Starship happening in the timeframe of the initial deployment of Starlink.

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RoboGoofers on 02/11/2020 07:42 pm
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.
I wouldn't count on Starship happening in the timeframe of the initial deployment of Starlink.

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
I recall Elon saying or tweeting that the first orbital flight would be SL sats.

Also, the first flight doesn't have to be reusable seeing as part or all of it likely won't make it back as assembled.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ludus on 02/14/2020 07:25 am
What’s the role of Geosynchronous Satellites in an era of Starlink and near orbit internet?

Assuming that SpaceX’s Starship plans work to mass deploy Starlink, they could also deploy really massive extremely powerful geosynchronous satellites. Would they have a role?

Is there other discussion of this?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/14/2020 08:29 am
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 02/14/2020 02:48 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 02/14/2020 03:03 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 02/14/2020 03:05 pm
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?

That kind of plane change at orbital velocity is a non-starter. It will have to use 39A, at least until reliability is high enough to allow overflight of the Yucatan 1000 km downrange.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 02/14/2020 03:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 02/14/2020 08:52 pm
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.

The big differentiator, from a users point of view, is latency. Another difference is SL can offer last mile service. I think GEO is a good architecture for a backbone where latency isn’t an issue. IIRC IP has quality of service capability so traffic management would not be an issue. If GEO becomes a backbone only, last mile is irrelevant.

No numbers, but I’d expect GEO to be less expensive over a 10 year period. Global coverage with only three launches. Only three birds to manage.

OTOH, GEO sats are very expensive. If a GEO bird dies it’s a big problem. An SL dies, who cares?  With SS showing every sign of ushering in a new expense model for launch this trade space gets a new envelope.

If launch is cheap a GEO sat need not be so robust and a hot spare on orbit is not out of the question. The cost goes down and offers the promise of the same or higher reliability.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: indaco1 on 02/16/2020 01:59 pm
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 02/16/2020 04:01 pm
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).
Are you sure they were SH and SS or just SS? I have only seen SS ocean launch platform renderings.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 02/16/2020 04:16 pm
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).
Are you sure they were SH and SS or just SS? I have only seen SS ocean launch platform renderings.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 02/16/2020 05:29 pm
Admitting the plan is to use floating platforms...

https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1228698221033095168
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: John Alan on 02/17/2020 05:22 pm
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/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ValmirGP on 02/17/2020 05:33 pm
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/

I doubt that. Tesla's Model 3/Y processors are a very specialized hardware for Neural Networks and image processing. Nothing to do with comm sats. But I do not discard the possibility that the same engineer had some input on the design.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 02/17/2020 11:45 pm

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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/18/2020 12:04 am
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...

My understanding is that making electronic radiation proof is VERY expensive, so I don't think that is the route SpaceX would go. But maybe there are some simple things they can do on the chips to make them more radiation resistant, or to make them recover from radiation events quicker.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 02/18/2020 12:04 am
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...

With on-demand streaming services taking market share from broadcast TV, that would argue against GEO sats even staying viable for that market.

And if the GEO satellite companies lose a huge portion of their market, yet only have the TV broadcasting remaining, are they still financially viable with all of the debt (junk debt) and high fixed costs? Doubtful.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 02/18/2020 05:23 am

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.
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)

Standard disclaimers: NSF is not a source of investment advice and has zero responsibility for your decisions in this area, seek competent advice, make your own decisions, be prudent, etc. etc.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 02/18/2020 12:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tulse on 02/18/2020 02:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 02/18/2020 02:41 pm
We're now adding unique 3D models to our catalog visualization page to represent satellites for different operators. Search "Starlink", "Flock", or "Iridium" to see the new updates!

https://twitter.com/LeoLabs_Space/status/1229413415866847232
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 02/19/2020 01:41 am
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.

Space lawyer Michael Listner (who btw is not a fan of SpaceX) was on The Space Show last week talking about lawfare. Starlink came up, he said a reporter asked him about the document calling France, etc to sue US in international court, he dismissed it as unlikely because:
1. The Outer Space Treaty is vague, you can make any interpretation you like, so there's no case
2. France is an ally of the US, lawfare is something you do to your enemies, i.e. between US and Russia.

Also I wonder if Arianespace will start backtracking their statements now astronomers came out and said OneWeb is worse in terms of impact, Europeans like France stand to lose more if they fight this given OneWeb is mostly based in Europe (Airbus is the prime contractor for satellites, Arianespace is launching)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 02/20/2020 07:04 am
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)

Quote
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."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 02/20/2020 07:31 am
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)

Quote
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."

“Little is known”... yes, but I only if one avoids doing basic research. Starlink is not a secret project.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 02/20/2020 04:51 pm
Moved a chunk of posts to the "Starlink: Markets" thread.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 02/21/2020 01:14 am
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)

Quote
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."

I read this via Google Translate, it's not as bad as I thought, no worse than some of the things on the US side. The article actually dismissed the astronomy concerns, mainly focused on space debris, but the space debris concerns they raised are easily addressed, Starlink is basically golden in terms of space debris. I wonder if this is just a way for DLR to raise funding for their space debris work.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 02/21/2020 03:11 pm
It looks like Starlink-46 has reentered. Making it the first Starlink satellite to be intentionally deorbited.


https://twitter.com/StarlinkUpdates/status/1230869841139130369
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 02/22/2020 01:45 pm
#starlink after 6 and 24 launches:

https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1230913377330794496
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/22/2020 04:31 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1231267235223736320

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 02/22/2020 05:41 pm
Also in that Twitter thread...

Gen. John Raymond is Chief of Space Operations,  US Space Force

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1231267237887168513

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 02/25/2020 07:41 pm
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/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/25/2020 07:47 pm
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/

The key quote from the article:

Quote
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”

The rest of the article is speculation based on that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/28/2020 09:47 pm
I assume this means that the satellites are costing roughly $400k or less apiece now.  Lots of good detail in this interview.

Quote from: Musk
We brought up the Starlink production line before we actually had the design finalized.
Quote
Then we discover there are all these things in the design that are very difficult to make.  Therefore, we must change the design.
Quote
The satellite ended up having the same capability, it was just easy to make and launch.
Quote
The satellites are being produced at a rate now faster than we can launch them.
Quote
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.
Quote
And the cost of that satellite will keep coming down as we ramp up rates and make design improvements.
Quote
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.


Starting at 26:10.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Events-2020/videoid/741194/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 02/29/2020 02:29 pm
.@elonmusk notes that @SpaceXStarlink sats are now being produced at a rate faster than they can be launched, and that the cost of manufacturing satellites has dropped below the per-unit cost of transporting them to orbit, "really needs #Starship" to reduce total delivered cost.

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1233687779571372033
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JAFO on 03/02/2020 10:09 am
Well THAT was certainly different. Doing a red eye transcon from SFO-Dulles tonight, over Dubuque I glanced up and saw the trail end of a string of pearls moving from r-l, by the time I grabbed my camera and got it set up for a night exposure they were gone. Grrrrrr....


So I can log a Starlink 4 sighting, but you know the saying: pics or it didn’t happen. It did, trust me. I can also understand why astronomers are concerned, they were very noticeable.




We also saw the ISS a bit later passing through Cassiopeia, tried to image it but I don’t think it came out, will have to wait until I get to the layover and plug my camera into my computer.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 03/03/2020 07:37 pm
I don't really have the raw data available - has anyone noticed if Darksat has done any weird orbital maneuvering since turning to the correct attitude? I figure if there aren't any thermal problems or odd behavior, there's a good chance some minor launch delays may be due to SpaceX recoating the satellites they've already built with the darkening treatment for future launches.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 03/03/2020 08:20 pm
I really doubt SpaceX would delay a launch to modify the satellites unless they found a major defect affecting multiple satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 03/04/2020 04:34 am
You're probably right. There's been some news on this. Over on the impacts of astronomy thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48302.msg2053970#msg2053970), someone found a paywalled Science article with info on Starlink. I noticed they mentioned that they mentioned "several" satellites with an "updated dark design" flying in the coming weeks - so we should start keeping track of those. That should mean they will end up launching on the next or next next Starlink launch. Sounds like it won't be all of the satellites, but there will be more than one.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RDMM2081 on 03/04/2020 05:20 am
Does anyone have a sense of the maximum cumulative/total dV exhibited by any Starlink satellite so far during on orbit operations?  I'm afraid I don't know where to begin deciphering from the (pretty!) graphs to calculate that.  Further, can anything else be deduced about the thrusters of the current gen of satellites like an approximate ISP or their total fuel capacity?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 03/04/2020 02:36 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 03/04/2020 03:18 pm
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?

I doubt it, in order to avoid potential inadvertent ITAR issues on the rocket side of the business.

Washington state is another issue.  The factory is in King County, the epicenter of the outbreak.  Entirely possible to see some impact on production.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 03/04/2020 07:47 pm
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?

Something that should be noted - most *chips* (silicon devices) come directly from Taiwan, not China (this may be extremely relevant if you're concerned with ITAR and security related issues, though I'm not sure specifically if it's sufficient for aerospace ITAR requirements). TSMC is the world's largest foundry (50% market share - so literally half of all the CMOS chips made in the world), and notably, it's the Taiwan Semicconductor Manufacturing Company. This also means they kind of have access to an enormous amount of semiconductor IP, since they basically manufacture all of it.

Most of the lower tech operations and components (packaging, soldering the packaged chip on a PCB, making resistors, other components) are indeed done in China, though.

Actually, that's an interesting question. What kind of ITAR regulations would Starlink satellites have to follow? Would they be permitted to use COTS technology to design things like custom RF phased array ICs? Today, commercial technology for silicon devices is far ahead of military technology, and it would be extremely limiting to be forced to design with technologies that are available in specialty ITAR compliant fabs. To give you an idea, TSMC is arguably leading the market with 7nm fabs, and basically produces AMD's high end Intel-beating 7nm CPUs now. I was looking for ITAR compliant tech and a quick glance tells me they're still at 45nm, at best. Admittedly density is not the critical parameter in this application, but sometimes other specs (RF-specific fab processes) may be more readily available in the COTS CMOS market.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 03/04/2020 08:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 03/04/2020 08:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 03/04/2020 09:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 03/04/2020 09:47 pm
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.

They have thankfully updated ITAR to be a whole lot more sensible, but that means making the determination is not simple; lots of rules and a good number of exceptions:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/121.1

Also, of concern is EAR which is like ITAR but more focused on dual use technology and such (which Starlinks are a great example of, since they have obvious military and civilian use)
https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/regulations/export-administration-regulations-ear

More technical details than are publicly known about Starlink may be needed to answer your question, for example, here is one part of the telecommunications restrictions (probably not applicable to Starlink due to the defined frequency range, just an example of the difficulty in answer such questions)
Quote
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;

It is worth keeping in mind that these restrictions are not absolute, you just need to get permission to bypass them.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 03/05/2020 01:07 am
Looks like they got their first gateway license, for the Ka band gateway in Greenville, Pennsylvania.  They rest of them haven't been granted yet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: groundbound on 03/05/2020 03:38 am
I will ask another supply chain question that it appears was not asked above.

Will a period of global supply chain disruption delay the volume rollout of user terminals?

I think with the satellites there is less concern. Volumes are 100's(ish) per month, and Elon's statements suggest that they are ahead of the ability to launch.

But we have heard precious little about user terminal production. Volumes will need to be several orders of magnitude above satellite production. Just because of the lack of information we have heard, we should probably assess a higher schedule risk to the service rollout from these devices than from anything else. Then add in global supply chain and transportation system disruption, and....
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RotoSequence on 03/05/2020 05:48 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 03/05/2020 07:18 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RotoSequence on 03/05/2020 08:27 am
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.

Probably, but they're already using the existing system in exercises.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 03/05/2020 09:53 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 03/05/2020 10:24 am
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 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).
You will know when they introduce links, when SpaceX will bother to mention it.
There are no requirements to declare their use to FCC. (I've posted relevant documents somewhere on this forum already).

P.S. Pretty much all modern tech development processes have very low personnel saturation line. Any significant change/discovery in new tech development can and does render many previous efforts "obsolete".

Immense engineers numbers in Saturn/Appollo programs were accumulated due to parallel development paradigm: numerous parts on different levels (i.e. starting with stages and ending material processing for the smallest parts) were developed up to the production phase in 2+ (up to 8 I believe) companies simultaneously and independently.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 03/07/2020 07:59 pm
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’m not so sure that’s an issue in the long term. With the lead time needed for a new commo system the lasers will be there before a system is anywhere near ready to hit the field. In the meantime the AF has a system to play with that will be exactly identical in every way from a users point of view except latency.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 03/08/2020 08:58 pm
Elon is giving the keynote address Monday March 9th at the Satellite 2020 show.

https://www.satshow.com/

Elon speaks at 4:00 PM eastern time.
There is a live stream.

https://www.satshow.com/stream/

Also, at 9:30 AM Jonathan Hofeller is participating in a discussion on Constellation Space Systems for Global Connectivity.
SpaceX Vice President of Starlink, Commercial Sales

https://www.satshow.com/conference-program/

I suspect Elon has something to say about Starlink, otherwise he would not have accepted this invitation to this particular show.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: volker2020 on 03/14/2020 12:09 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 03/14/2020 02:39 pm
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?

We know the ground stations they've started setting up in the United States, you can find a list in the Starlink Index Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48981.0) or in the FCC filings threads.  They have 4-8 dishes at each site.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 03/18/2020 02:26 am
First observations and magnitude measurement of SpaceX's Darksat (https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07251)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 03/22/2020 04:18 am
Sounds like the best solution to sunlight reflection is the sun shade. I think the most mass-efficient sun shade is to use the solar panels as the sun shade. Will still require re-design, motors for pointing, and possibly larger reaction wheels to maintain orientation. An add-on sunshade will still require most of the extras, like motors to position properly as orientation is constantly changing, but this also applies to the solar cells as they must be constantly adjusted to face the sun. Why have duplicate systems doing the same thing?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 03/24/2020 02:25 pm
Some counter programming this morning: new studies have emerged examining the impact of SpaceX’s Starlink constellation. We’re getting a better understanding of which types of astronomy will be affected — and if that coating is working.

https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/1242446762813673472
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 03/24/2020 02:26 pm
These images which I shot yesterday evening, show 3 @SpaceX #starlink satellites, including STARLINK-1130 "DARKSAT", passing the same part of the sky in 10 min time.As can be seen, Starlink-1130 is clearly fainter due to its reflectance-reducing coating.

https://twitter.com/Marco_Langbroek/status/1242136773670703106
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 03/24/2020 03:50 pm
.@OneWeb, w/ 74 sats in operation, clears 1st of three new @ITU milestones; @SpaceX Starlink likely will this yr; @Telesat LEO says it'll meet Feb 1, 2023, deadline but has much work to do.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1242484990660624384
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 03/26/2020 02:10 pm
My 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.

https://twitter.com/ralfvandebergh/status/1243175334817734657
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZChris13 on 03/26/2020 02:56 pm
Quote
My 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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 03/27/2020 09:15 pm
Interesting little interview with Matt Desch regarding Starlink:
https://twitter.com/cheddar/status/1237811815175852033
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 03/27/2020 09:28 pm
Interesting little interview with Matt Desch regarding Starlink:
https://twitter.com/cheddar/status/1237811815175852033
Matt Desch about Elon rolling out Starlink: "I think he is going slowly and carefully"
In the meanwhile Elon is launching 120 satellites a MONTH... I don't even want to know what Matt thinks Elon is capable of if he isn't going slowly and carefully.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RoboGoofers on 03/29/2020 01:02 pm
Oneweb has filed for bankruptcy:
https://www.engadget.com/2020-03-28-oneweb-declares-bankruptcy.html (https://www.engadget.com/2020-03-28-oneweb-declares-bankruptcy.html)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/29/2020 03:52 pm
Matt Desch really impressed me during the 8 Iridium launches. 

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 03/29/2020 04:09 pm
Matt Desch really impressed me during the 8 Iridium launches. 

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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Luc on 03/29/2020 04:21 pm

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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 03/29/2020 04:25 pm

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.

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.
Sure, but Bezos, once he gets NG going, might actually be able to be a real competitor.

Whether he'll be able to pick up the spectrum rights is questionable IMO. We'll find out pretty quickly if he intends to take over and complete this constellation.  If not, he still needs to stand in line with everyone else, and nothing prevents players like Iridium to file plans too.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Luc on 03/29/2020 04:37 pm
If he buys the company, doesn’t he get the spectrum rights?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 03/29/2020 04:45 pm
There is a thread for OneWeb, and further OneWeb discussion will be moved there.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37814.0
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/01/2020 02:26 pm
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 Choi
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.

https://www.satellitetoday.com/business/2020/03/31/tom-choi-onewebs-failure-will-dent-newspace-investment/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 04/01/2020 03:16 pm
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 Choi
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.

https://www.satellitetoday.com/business/2020/03/31/tom-choi-onewebs-failure-will-dent-newspace-investment/

I have zero idea how he came to this conclusion:

Quote
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?

'please cite'

Every Starlink launch puts up more capacity (1200 gbps) than the $700m Viasat 3 satellite.

Honestly, most of it sounds personal/snarky/salty goalseeking.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 04/01/2020 04:53 pm
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 04/01/2020 11:58 pm
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tulse on 04/02/2020 03:23 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 04/02/2020 03:38 am
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 04/02/2020 04:37 am
Quote
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.

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.

It doesn't matter to me if GEO sat operators PAID ME $100 to take one of their terminals, their service is unusable to me because of latency. 

Before arguing about price, how about offering a product that satisfies the requirements.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 04/02/2020 05:51 am
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.

Bandwidth is generally a function of frequency, followed by how many users are sharing that frequency within a particular spot beam, followed by the performance/size of the spot beam antenna (receiver generally wants a larger antenna, transmitter wants more power, both a resource restricted on most satellites). Lynk is more hobbled by not have a megaconstellations worth of coverage, so their supposed initial constellation only provides hourly coverage, with time limited to a few minutes per pass, and their antenna isn't huge either (antenna size will limit the ability to pick up weak signals from phones). That situation favors small data size async stuff like text messages for IoT telemetry. If you build a huge antenna (fab in space, not a deployable) that improves things immensely, followed by having gobs of power for transmit and phased array control.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 04/02/2020 05:56 am
Quote
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.

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.

It's just a bizarre argument anyway. The combination modem and satellite dish and cabling on my house right now adds up to more than $100 -- much more years ago when I first got satellite. Closer to $1000 IIRC.
And "poor country folk" are walking around with >$500 phones in their pocket all over the place out here.
If Starlink works reliably, there is a market for it, no question.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/02/2020 03:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 04/02/2020 08:33 pm
In its latest petition against #ProjectKuiper's @FCC filing @SpaceX argues @amazon requests special treatment by inclusion in a processing round closed 3y ago, evading commitments towards interference avoidance and a "mechanical approach" towards the same:

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1245796084548603910
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 04/03/2020 02:58 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 04/04/2020 06:15 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 04/04/2020 06:34 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/04/2020 04:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 04/04/2020 06:24 pm
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.

There is a minor investor that has 'dabbled' in telephone service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: david1971 on 04/04/2020 06:35 pm
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.

Assuming there isn't a large gap in launches, is there a current estimate as to when they will "turn on" the system for customers?  Is the number of satellites in the sky the pacing issue at this point, or is it ground infrastructure?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/04/2020 06:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 04/04/2020 07:45 pm
Without reading far above - I have scanned the thread a few times...
Keeping the terminal to $100, or $150 is IMO not nearly as important as we think. Currently home internet routers are pretty cheap, even if you decide to actually buy one instead of it being part of a contract.

However
1. The importance of a good connection in an otherwise poor to impossible location, allows for a higher cost.
2. We have (if you have brought up kids) become accustomed to buying games consoles for several $100's, and to signing contracts for iPhones etc valued as $600 or more... for them to be obsolete and broken or lost within their two year contract.
3. EM doesn't seem to like "throwaway" technology, so it is more likely a longer service life, (and firmware(etc) upgrades), will be designed into the contractual terms than the current providers do. This will spread the cost. EM also like elegance and good engineering, so defects, and deterioration are unlikely.

So if the terminal is $600, with $200 paid upfront and the rest a component of a 3 year contract, it would add $8 to the monthly tariff (excluding that initial $300), which would not be a show stopper at all. So ISTM SX has loads of room with its cost.

Will SX deliberately allow shared accounts, or shared use. If so that would also reduce the effective cost of the device.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/04/2020 07:59 pm
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-launches-20-billion-rural-digital-opportunity-fund-0
Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/04/2020 08:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 04/05/2020 04:27 am

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/05/2020 01:52 pm

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.
$55/month? I see no problem here, then.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 04/05/2020 07:12 pm
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.

Price depends a lot on how many sq mm the chip is, and chip gate density. I was budgeting $25 for the chipset. This assumes 100,000 volume production of the chip(s). By far the most expensive part.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/05/2020 08:13 pm
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/1246887524011835394

Quote
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 don’t have the background to know whose claims are more accurate. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/05/2020 08:20 pm
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/1246887524011835394

Quote
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 don’t have the background to know whose claims are more accurate.

That entire post is garbage.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ccdengr on 04/05/2020 08:28 pm
That entire post is garbage.
Care to explain why, in detail?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/05/2020 09:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ccdengr on 04/05/2020 09:38 pm
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.  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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/05/2020 10:00 pm
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.

Tim has never had a good thing to say about SpaceX, Starlink, or Musk (read his blog for yourself).  He thinks SpaceX is on the brink of bankruptcy, even though it raised a billion last year at a $30-$35 billion valuation and a half billion so far this year at a $36 billion valuation.

He has no insight on SpaceX, Starlink, or Musk.  He hears negative rumors from people who have no special insight and takes it as fact.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/05/2020 10:05 pm
Is the post a little hyperbolic?  Sure.

It's more than a little hyperbolic.

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.

Actually, subsidizing the deployment of a network is the whole point of RDOF.  And "slurp from the government trough"?  You think SpaceX should just decline any chances to use government funds and let other more worthy companies get the money instead?  If SpaceX can provide the service then why shouldn't they participate in the program?  You and Mr. Farrar both seem to think that SpaceX can't initiate Starlink service without money from RDOF, and the technology is far too unproven for them to be allowed to compete.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/05/2020 10:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ccdengr on 04/05/2020 10:29 pm
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.

As to what happens with RDOF, I guess only time will tell.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, I appreciate it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/05/2020 11:28 pm
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 respect and like that Starlink's initial deployment were scaled back from global coverage.  Let's admit for a moment that deploying a global network and being a worldwide ISP is a level of madness seldom seen.

Scaling back to provide that service in the US, where you are based and licensed makes sense.  Get up, fly birds, make revenue and get licensed in other countries.

SpaceX does not have bottomless pockets, get that cashflow going.  All the other stuff can be added later as they launch the next 39,000 satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/05/2020 11:32 pm
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.

I have no doubt Tim Farrar knows a heck of a lot more about the telecom industry than I do, but posts like the one above are just so over the top in their derision towards SpaceX that I can't take what he says seriously.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/05/2020 11:39 pm
I disagree with calling the current state of Starlink "basic development".  They have a few hundred satellites on orbit.  Those satellites have been tested.  They have been testing user terminals (but haven't publicly released much information about that.)  This isn't starting from scratch after they start getting money from RDOF (if they even get any).  They should be able to demonstrate performance to the FCC if asked.  There isn't any guarantee that Starlink will be a success at providing the level of performance SpaceX has promoted, but they seem to be well on their way to providing a level of performance that would qualify for RDOF services (depending on exactly what level of service they bid of course, there are four speed tiers).  The one area that could potentially trip them up with RDOF is if an area that is fairly dense got included and they didn't have enough satellite density to simultaneously cover most of the population.  They could probably avoid that by carefully choosing where to bid.  The 3 year threshold is ability to serve 40% of the area's population, with the threshold increasing each year after that.

The threshold for "low latency" is 100ms.  Even if SpaceX's latencies are double what they've been claiming they'd still easily clear the bar, and not getting into the low latency category is a huge detriment when the bids are being scored.

I don't have any problem with saying the overall performance of Starlink is TBD.  Some features have been pushed back.  It will take them a while to mature the system.  However, unless something goes terribly wrong they'll be starting service in much of the U.S. in 2021 and the RDOF doesn't require service until 2024.  Programs like RDOF don't happen every year.  SpaceX can't just wait a few months for the next one to come along.  I think they are far enough along with Starlink that they should be allowed to compete, and I would hope the FCC does their due diligence to confirm SpaceX will have a good chance of meeting the levels of service they bid for.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/05/2020 11:39 pm
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.

Sir, I have a collection of garbage that I am very fond of, and I take strong exception to it being categorized with that article.

Doing a higher level of analysis, this article misrepresents (SX will get the whole 16B), and more insidious (I love dat word!), the author takes every operational element he can get his widdle mind wapped awound (google Elmer Fudd) and finds the most disingenuous negative interpretation he can come up with.

The cleanest example of this last was missed by Gongora. Probably because he was too busy understandably foaming at the mouth. Here it is.

In testing, the Air Force didn’t even use an Elon Musk DNA impregnated antenna! (There might be a bit of paraphrasing there) They used their own antenna.  DuH.

Have you ever certified aircraft electronics? If they had the electronics to hook up they would have used it. They had an antenna that looked like it would work and they probably insisted on using it for the test. The shame! The Horror! They figured they could get some extra mileage out of something that those of us who pay taxes in the US, already paid for. Now those tax dollars can go to SLS. Grumble, grumble.

Gongora, in the future try not to dis my garbage. Thank you.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/05/2020 11:58 pm
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.

I have a limited but not universal acceptance of government troughs. If the government is intent on setting up a trough and you qualify, sip away. If you don’t, your competitor will.  The problem is unnecessary troughs, not the sipping.

Opinion: the article was a pure smear piece.

Time to get back on topic.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ccdengr on 04/06/2020 12:14 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/06/2020 12:34 am
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/06/2020 12:50 am
Isn't the biggest thing for phone service hooking into the 911 system?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/06/2020 01:21 am
Isn't the biggest thing for phone service hooking into the 911 system?

That is my understanding.  With mobile providers allowing Wi-Fi calling so they’re only a half step from it anyway.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/06/2020 01:22 am
It’s worth noting that basically all broadband providers already basically do VoIP for their bundled phone services, although perhaps not IP per se but over their own network layer. They’re able to hook up 911 service to that just fine. I don’t foresee this part being a major problem for SpaceX.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 04/06/2020 01:36 am
Isn't the biggest thing for phone service hooking into the 911 system?

T-Mobile US charges (https://www.t-mobile.com/responsibility/consumer-info/additional-info/regulatory-programs-fee) $0.60/line for E911 compliance but also $3.18/line to cover other telco expenses they believe imposed on them by regulations.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/06/2020 01:43 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 04/06/2020 03:48 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/06/2020 03:59 am
 911 for fixed location stuff like Starlink hardwired or WiFi phones should be easy. You just route it to the local service, and location for the incoming call can just be a little data packet with GPS and/or street address. That gets setup in whatever voip gateway you're using. It's much more complicated for roaming gear like cell phones. Then it has to be routed by some godawful overdesigned, overpriced monstrosity of a system the government came up with to route the calls and give the user location.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 04/06/2020 04:24 am
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.

E911 services for cellphones and fixed VoIP lines have been dealing with sort of stuff for a while now.

E911+ starlink terminal needing line of sight to the sky for sats+GPS, thus knowing location, would make things fairly simple, though that would be via Starlink's own VoIP service connecting the right info to the E911 regional gateway (not dissimilar to how cellphone carriers have a central registry reporting the phones current tower and rough location via triangulation, plus a means to tickle the phone to activate GPS and report location when an emergency call starts). Anything doing straight VoIP over the top wouldn't have access to terminal location directly, so things would be done in a roundabout way.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 04/06/2020 07:35 am

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?

the best region for initial service  is near 53 degrees paralell . Here is   biggest dencity satellite per km2
I mean  -
Gateway isn`t problem , you need only time for its deploy
User terminal - main problem is  price . Since 2017 you have on market Kymeta.  it`s work , but its price is 25000 USD.
Main problem (but invisible ) software or Network Management System,  what will  coordinate trafic exchange via satellite  between user terminal  and gateway .
Its very complicated for geostacionary satellite , but for LEO we have 2 additional problems: position in sky and distance between terminal and satellite  permanently changed..

And date of  start of service  - it`s  really now goes to end of year 2020??
PS Sorry for my English...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/06/2020 11:24 am
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.


Any system can be gamed. If SL is just doing the data pipe, short of kickbacks or over subscription they have no incentive to throttle anybody’s phone service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/06/2020 11:33 am
Isn't the biggest thing for phone service hooking into the 911 system?


There was speculation a long while back that ground stations would have built in gps. This is a seed from which 911 can be made to work.


Is there anything in VOIP or whatever protocol using these days, to address 911? Does Skype do 911?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 04/06/2020 01:55 pm
If Starlink was the panacea some claim, it would simply win in the marketplace, not have to slurp from the government trough.

What marketplace? The government has to subsidize rural broadband in the first place, because otherwise it does not and would not exist - why do you think that is?

Hint: it's not because the terrestrial providers are falling all over themselves to tap that highly profitable marketplace.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 04/06/2020 01:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/06/2020 02:18 pm
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 starts Oct 1, that doesn't feel that far away and who knows what the eventual impact of COVID-19 has on everything being ready and in place.  These are not normal times, schedules and plans across all industries are up in the air now.

I'm sure there are ways to manage the costs of the customers receiving antenna.  Perhaps it remains the property of Starlink and must be returned or there is a loss of deposit or a fee and a monthly rental on the antenna in the same way Comcast charges $10 a month for life on a cable modem.  It's not ideal but there are ways.

Can't wait.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 04/06/2020 02:47 pm
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/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ccdengr on 04/06/2020 03:23 pm
Does Skype do 911?
In theory, sort of, maybe?  https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/skypeforbusiness/certification/services-e911

I don't think regular Skype does 911 (on a phone, the app just dials 911 via the cell system), and the architecture for supporting 911 on VoIP in general is confusing to me.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 04/06/2020 04:25 pm
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 can't find an actual quote of what Gwynne said (Erwin is paraphrasing), but based on other SpaceX statements her confidence in the "mid" appears to be with regard to the "6 to 8 launches" and not with regard to consumer offering, which will happen after the 6 or 8 launches. SpaceX has consistently said "after 6 launches" and "in 2020" in other materials.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/06/2020 05:04 pm
I just googled “911 maps”.

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/06/2020 05:10 pm
I just googled “911 maps”.

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
But many, many companies have solved this problem. It's not really worth discussing, IMHO, compared to the other, harder issues here.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DreamyPickle on 04/06/2020 05:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ccdengr on 04/06/2020 06:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/06/2020 06:55 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 04/06/2020 07:09 pm
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 04/06/2020 07:34 pm
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.

In the context of the FCC subsidy the criticism is not about the delay but the secrecy and vague promises. If they want to participate in a public project they need to be more open. Providing a media article about a single test with a non-Starlink terminal with no other subscribers using the network as evidence that technology is ready to serve hundreds of thousands of users opens them for a valid criticism. They've already had an experimental license for 256 terminals for a long time. Revealing the test results would go a long way to shut the critics up.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/06/2020 07:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 04/06/2020 08:04 pm
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!


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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/06/2020 08:12 pm
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.

I'd say they have shared far more then they need too.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/06/2020 08:47 pm
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.
The whole argument is weak.

Yeah, the terminals are still being worked, but regular broadband is not well suited for rural. LEO constellations are, offsetting the terminal risk.

And LEO constellations are super risky, capital-wise, as we can clearly see with history and OneWeb and so we should not artificially disadvantage them in any kind of contract like this. Excluding Starlink because it's "new" (even though the initial operating capacity is already mostly built out) would be seriously playing favorites.

Let SpaceX compete with everyone else fairly. It's not hard. Unless you've got an ax to grind against SpaceX or Elon Musk, then life overall is pretty hard.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/06/2020 09:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eka on 04/07/2020 01:55 am
I just googled “911 maps”.

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
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/07/2020 01:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/07/2020 04:11 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ccdengr on 04/07/2020 06:49 pm
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/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/07/2020 07:11 pm
If they bid for RDOF, presumably something changed their minds.

I would think schedule certainty is part of it.  That was a year before they launched the v0.9 sats.  Now they have an actual deployment plan.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/07/2020 07:15 pm
I just googled “911 maps”.

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
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.

That’s the process I'd expect as long as the info can be found from one source.

If TIGER has the data in a database and it’s in consistent form, it’s just database grunge to make it work. Especially if they publish updates in advance with an implementation date.

Phil


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/07/2020 07:29 pm
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/)

Quote
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.


$$?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ccdengr on 04/07/2020 07:54 pm
$$?
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/07/2020 08:06 pm
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/)

Quote
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’m not sure how the subsidy works but I am sure Uncle Sugar will be sending out info packets to everybody in covered areas. Free marketing. Us NSFers know about it. Do residents in remote places out west know?

A win/win, almost free money and a ready made installed base to boot.

Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/07/2020 10:08 pm
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.

I have been looking at these types of files for a while now and have found the SpaceX filings to be by-and-large refreshing in their lack of dishonest arguments.  Not pure white by any means, of course.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 04/08/2020 03:23 am
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.

Based on the turn of events, it's more like they changed their mind in 2018 when they decided not to bid in previous auction. Bidding on auction is their default stance, something changed in May 2018 that made them give up that particular auction, so what changed back then? Well, in June 2018 Elon fired the top management of Starlink because they're moving too slowly, so this is probably the reason: They realized in May 2018 that their progress back then won't be fast enough to satisfy the auction requirements.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 04/08/2020 02:39 pm
$$?
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.

They didn't say "never", and didn't say they didn't say they want funding. More like they couldn't use the funding, because  per the auction rules for CAF they would have had to complete 40% of the subsidized connections within 3 years. They were likely not in a position to meet that schedule in 2018.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/08/2020 06:47 pm
 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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/08/2020 07:12 pm
Perhaps they could be used for user terminals acting as ground relays.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/08/2020 07:51 pm
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?

Kinda depends on if the FCC authorizes those Ku gateways or not.  Starlink is not currently licensed to use Ku gateways, but they've been getting away with using them on STAs during the test phase.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/09/2020 03:09 pm
One thing that SpaceX will do to demonstrate gigabit capability while not getting into an argument with critics is the ongoing four-times-a-year DoD testing.  That is building credibility.

The first year of consumer service could be bumpy, so perhaps SpaceX will wait until the RDOF auction has finished before introducing beta consumer service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 04/10/2020 07:24 pm
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/11/2020 12:21 am
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].

The document seems to be from the St. Johns River WMD site.  That one hasn't been submitted to the FCC yet.

edit:  That document also shows it as a Ku quad, so wouldn't be a normal Starlink gateway.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/11/2020 04:19 pm
https://twitter.com/djsnm/status/1249005553629540359

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/14/2020 07:05 am
https://twitter.com/wordsmithfl/status/1249838401865633793

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 04/18/2020 02:16 am
New filing
https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-MOD-20200417-00037

Quote
Space 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. A nice side effect is that this removes the most serious chunk of astronomy interference, especially late at night.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/18/2020 02:51 am
Pretty much as expected.

Some expected, some not so much.  We'll see how that inclination change plays out.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/18/2020 04:08 am
 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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/18/2020 04:26 am
I haven't seen info about ground stations elsewhere, but they must be working on it.  Weren't there some Starlink filings in Australia?  We need our non-US members to dig for info in their countries  :)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FlattestEarth on 04/18/2020 11:15 am
Hmm, really want to see a visualization of the modified constellation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 04/18/2020 12:39 pm
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.
They imply the change will also speed deployment to these areas.

ISTM that communicating with ground stations and gateways, for these satellites will now be almost identical to the rest of their constellations (if there was much difference, the application mentions reduced power etc), so building gateways and deploying ground stations will have no technical boundaries between the 53o inc and the rest, facilitating a consistent build, and roll-out.

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.

The 70o planes clearly have dense coverage of Alaska and Canada, and these along with the 90o (ish) will give complete coverage to aircraft etc with great circle routes in the Arctic.

Is anyone watching for regulatory filings in Canada and Mexico..... or Norway/Sweden. (Norway loves Tesla, and its ideal for Starlink), or Canada.... South Africa.... and anywhere else. Chile (for Antarctica....)

EDIT: Or property purchase. Or Job Advertisements for offices/officials in these countries. If there are to be Gateways, and distribution of ground stations there will have to be an office. The extra activities will mean new hires.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 04/18/2020 01:58 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/18/2020 02:27 pm
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.

Nice map.  Shows fairly even spread across the United States, assuming that the uncovered areas will be filled in.  Maybe 50 total gateways for the U.S. in this phase.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/18/2020 04:29 pm
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?

 El Paso looks a little iffy in that map.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1H1x8jZs8vfjy60TvKgpbYs_grargieVw&ll=30.479815690358823%2C-70.95175456250001&z=3
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/18/2020 04:59 pm
  I'm waiting for the "SpaceX slashes the number of satellites in their proposed Starlink system" headlines.
 They went from 4409 to 4408 in the proposed modification.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 04/18/2020 05:01 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: philw1776 on 04/18/2020 05:08 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: soltasto on 04/18/2020 06:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: lonestriker on 04/18/2020 06:41 pm

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 04/18/2020 07:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 04/18/2020 07:55 pm
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? 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 04/18/2020 08:42 pm

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.
I thought that the inter-sat laset links were a technical problem.

However a different problem, is one we've previously thought of as a benefit - making an alternative internet backbone, with low latency traffic across the world.

The problem is that traffic is screened and metadata stored at the border in the US. This is possible because of cooperation between operators and government allows placement of equipment, and physical access to the routers and fibre.

Starlink would not be able to provide physical ground side locations for such monitoring, and new methods of monitoring communication in and out of the US for the ISL traffic would have to be developed. SpaceX may not be happy with either the ethics, or the logistics and cost of implementing such systems, or developing them is a long pole. In the UK ISP's (internet service providers) also have to keep certain metadata, and logs etc on users. Traffic is routed through the ISP, who has to invest in systems to meet this obligation.
If all Starlink traffic has to go through base stations, then those locations can be used to meet such legal requirements, and/or being within the USA Starlink will not be the agent importing and exporting communications, so will not have the burden of all these "monitoring" processes.

Such arrangements may have national security classifications, so planning is unlikely to be visible in publicly released documents. If such planning is underway, an expectation of it taking a few years, may be a reason SX can take its time to develop ISL technology whilst they await outcomes/instructions.

OK lots of speculation.... but I believe valid.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: philw1776 on 04/18/2020 08:50 pm
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.

I think cash flow is a big issue at SpaceX given everything they are doing at once.
They have a long history of obtaining govt funding to move R&D (in this case inter-satellite laser comms - NOT trivial)
For example, they secured ~$60 million in Air Force funds for development of a methane-oxygen propellant upper stage, which was really Raptor funding.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/18/2020 09:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 04/18/2020 09:54 pm
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 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.

One obvious point is that all these "constellations" are now at about the same height, and both the 70 degree and 97.6 degree planes could immediately contribute to the coverage over the southern USA, and not only be of significant utility further North in Canada and Alaska etc.

Money for connecting remote citizen in Alaska etc (I forgot the programme name) is still in contention. Maybe SX intends to "create facts on the ground" by actually demonstrating high bandwidth, low latency to remote locations (including voice ;-) ) Before final decisions are made, even the current filing is more evidence of their intent and method.

I suspect there is a change in launch order to do just that: populate 3 planes of 20 sats each at 70 degrees inclination, and test some ground stations, possibly in his uncle's farm where he worked, the remote Alaskan base where they do Tesla snow testing... etc and maybe some remote research station. Will we see starlink terminals on "Ice Road Truckers"?  Playing first person shooters in 4K whilst sheltering from bears up a tree! Plenty of things to tweet about!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 04/18/2020 10:20 pm
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:
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: salpun on 04/18/2020 10:28 pm
Starlink base elements (~ 4ft white satellite domes) showed up at Boca Chica today.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 04/18/2020 10:41 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/18/2020 10:43 pm
Noticed that the Organizational Information document shows Musk owning 47.4% of SpaceX, with 78.3% voting control.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 04/19/2020 01:16 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 04/19/2020 02:17 am
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.

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... 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/19/2020 03:07 am
6 to 9 months likely won't impact the Starlink deployment.  So there's no problem with that pace.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 04/19/2020 03:20 am
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.

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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 04/19/2020 03:59 am
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.

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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/19/2020 04:18 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: groknull on 04/19/2020 05:29 am
The recent SpaceX FCC filing discussed in the "Starlink : New FCC Filings" thread includes significant proposed changes to the constellation.

Post with the link to the filing on the FCC website (TorenAltair):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2069971#msg2069971
Extraction of the proposed orbital plane changes (gongora):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2069983#msg2069983
Excerpt of the orbital plane spreadsheet and source spreadsheet (gongora):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2070008#msg2070008
(The spreadsheet is apparently in the .jet file in the filing which some devices and systems may not be able to read.)

Since I was having a little trouble visualizing the proposed orbital planes, I did a quick and dirty CAD model using the data in the spreadsheet.  These models show the proposed orbits, but not the individual satellites.  These models do not show the configurations from previous filings.

Color codes:
Red: 540km, 53deg inclination, 5deg RAAN increment, 0deg RAAN offset, 72 planes, 22 satellites per plane
Yellow: 550km, 53.2deg inclination, 5deg RAAN increment, 2.5deg RAAN offset, 72 planes, 22 satellites per plane
Green: 570km, 70deg inclination, 10deg RAAN increment, 0deg RAAN offset, 36 planes, 20 satellites per plane
Magenta: 560km, 97.6deg inclination, 60deg RAAN increment, 3.7deg RAAN offset, 6 planes, 58 satellites per plane
Cyan: 560km, 97.6deg inclination, 12deg RAAN increment, 75.7deg RAAN offset, 4 planes, 43 satellites per plane

Image descriptions:
1: All 4 altitudes; 540km, 550km, 560km, 570km (all rows in the spreadsheet)
2: 540km, 550km only
3: 570km, 560km (both 58 and 43 satellite subsets)
4: 560km only (both 58 and 43 satellite subsets)
5: 560km only, 6 planes of 58 satellites
6: 560km only, 4 planes of 43 satellites

Edit: added inclinations to color code index (540km and 550km do have slightly different inclinations)
Edit 2: I got a sign wrong on the model, so the point of view for these images is about 210deg azimuth, 60deg elevation
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/19/2020 09:47 am

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.


Nope, its very public. The Space Development Agency recently issued a RFP to develop a mesh-link satellite constellation using laser inter links:

Quote
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.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2020/04/06/the-pentagon-will-solicit-its-first-mesh-network-in-space-may-1/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 04/19/2020 02:48 pm
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.

Sorry ... Out of date Musk tweets...  the world moves quickly in Musk time.
I will shut up for now...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/19/2020 03:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: launchwatcher on 04/19/2020 03:34 pm
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.

The VoIP providers I've used have asked for an address to associate with each calling line.   Once they have that information it's a  simple database lookup on their end to identify the physical location of the caller and it uses that to identify where to route the call and what metadata to tack on as your physical location.

Of course, if you pick up your VoIP phone or ATA and plug it in while in another city and dial 911 without telling the provider of your new location you'll get the wrong dispatcher.

You'd need something like this with Starlink in any event -- gps coordinates of a starlink antenna on top of an apartment building would not tell you which apartment the subscriber lived in...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 04/19/2020 03:49 pm
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.

The important part is his 78.3% control of voting shares.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/19/2020 07:04 pm
 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.
 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/19/2020 07:12 pm
Do they look like 1.5m dishes?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/19/2020 07:14 pm
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.
 One of our vendors tried squeezing too small a dome around a dish once, and air currents were messing things up. The dishes are extremely well balanced and the drive motors are usually smaller than you'd believe. Might be different for these as often as they'd need to move quickly to different targets.

 How many antennas would you expect?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/19/2020 07:18 pm
Their normal Ka gateways are 8 antennas (according to the FCC filings).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/19/2020 07:21 pm
This is where the permit says they should be
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/19/2020 07:26 pm
This is where the permit says they should be
That's about 30 feet from where they're sitting.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/20/2020 02:49 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/20/2020 03:17 pm
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
Samsung is still working on their ka band model. Apple and I don't get along.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ValmirGP on 04/20/2020 04:36 pm
What is really funny is that there is a camera pointed straight into Nomadd’s camera. 
Watch out man, they have you on their sights.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 04/20/2020 05:43 pm
What is really funny is that there is a camera pointed straight into Nomadd’s camera. 
Watch out man, they have you on their sights.
They even tried to EMP Nomadd's cam with one of the tracking dishes. They lost.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/20/2020 09:24 pm
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)

It looks like they removed the document links from the site, a reminder to always save the files (which I didn't).

There is an FCC filing for a Ka-band Starlink ground station at a different spot on CCAFS now.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/21/2020 06:32 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ShSch on 04/21/2020 08:02 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 04/21/2020 03:29 pm
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 .

According to  FCC approval Standart for  Gateways is Ka band ..
And I mean that StarLink V1.0  work  in Ku (downlink) and Ka (uplink)  ...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/21/2020 04:27 pm
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/21/2020 04:37 pm
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. Do we have an estimate of how many customers they can realistically service with these 360 sats? In other words, how many customer subscriptions they can potentially generate from September?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: snotis on 04/22/2020 08:19 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1252872826731655173 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1252872826731655173)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/22/2020 02:36 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1252872826731655173 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1252872826731655173)

Quote
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.

Now if only I was sure what he meant by "launch 9"  :-\  :)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/22/2020 04:31 pm
twitter.com/erdayastronaut/status/1252986280553652228

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1252986968058802177

Quote
Solar panel angle during orbit raise / park. We’re fixing it now.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 04/22/2020 09:32 pm
In what world were they "fairly unnoticed before"?  Seems like there was a LOT of visibility (har) from the very first launch.

I guess the geometry changed with the more recent trajectories... perhaps that made it worse?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/22/2020 10:17 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1253084960057176068

Quote
There are now 420 operational Starlink satellites 🛰 😉
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/22/2020 10:44 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1253084960057176068

Quote
There are now 420 operational Starlink satellites 🛰 😉

There are not 420 operational Starlink satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 04/22/2020 11:21 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1253084960057176068

Quote
There 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.

"Operational" being the important term here that might be debatable. ;) The last batch is in orbit but not at an operational altitude and phase.

As far as the count itself, a few have been deorbited, but the two first prototypes (Tintin A & B) are still up there, but appear to be in the process of being brought down. But he could be counting them too.

What is the accurate number of Starlink satellites in orbit, Gongora?

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/22/2020 11:40 pm
If you count the Tintins then 419, at least a few of which are being deorbited.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/23/2020 12:21 am
twitter.com/flcnhvy/status/1253114111191285763

Quote
How many Starlink launches needed until minor/moderate coverage? Are you still targeting service in the US & Canada by end of this year?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1253115727965491202

Quote
Private beta begins in ~3 months, public beta in ~6 months, starting with high latitudes
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 04/23/2020 01:28 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/23/2020 01:42 am
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.

Yes.  One each from v0.9, v1.0 L2, v1.0 L4 have deorbited so far.

Jonathan's count:
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1253133249473327110
Quote
I estimate there are now 412 operational Starlink sats with 3 reentered, 2 Tintin prototypes retired, and 5 apparently dead in orbit

edit: Hummy's list in the tracking thread also had 5 broken sats.  I'm still not sure how "operational" the v0.9 sats are meant to be long-term, I'm assuming they wouldn't actually be used for normal customer traffic.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 04/23/2020 02:14 am
If you count the Tintins then 419, at least a few of which are being deorbited.

I agree with you that these are not all operational satellites.
Can't you feel for Musk's enthusiasm, their closest competitor recently declared bankruptcy they again accomplished something no one else has done.

lighten up.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JerHog on 04/23/2020 02:27 am
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).

Is there a specific latitude and north that will have service first or is that not known yet?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: snotis on 04/23/2020 05:34 am
Based on this video linked below latitudes between ~40 and ~56 will have continuous coverage in this initial version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k73AFybi7zk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k73AFybi7zk)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 04/23/2020 05:58 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 04/23/2020 07:04 am
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.

As I understand some recent filings, they plan to keep the 25 degree minimum elevation. This is still reasonable for a phased array with no mechanical motion.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/23/2020 09:12 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1253249276509130753

Quote
Good summary

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-internet-service-beta-program/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/23/2020 09:27 am
For context:

[...]

twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1253115727965491202

Quote
Private beta begins in ~3 months, public beta in ~6 months, starting with high latitudes

twitter.com/flcnhvy/status/1253252054589595649

Quote
Does Germany count as high latitude? 🤞

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1253253205963804673

Quote
Yes
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/24/2020 03:52 pm
Going down memory lane a bit, I was curious about the original Iranian RFIC team that Musk poached from Broadcom (https://qz.com/650751/spacex-has-been-accused-of-stealing-an-engineering-a-team-for-its-secret-satellite-internet-project/).  It is a little hard to know where all of them are now, but of the four, only one obviously remains at SpaceX (now a Senior Manager).  The manager who recruited the team appears to have shaken out when in June 2018 Musk cleaned house (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-starlink-insight/musk-shakes-up-spacex-in-race-to-make-satellite-launch-window-sources-idUSKCN1N50FC) in the top manager ranks in Redmond, leading to a change in plans with regard to the antennas.

The ASIC/RFIC/FPGA teams do seem stable and they keep hiring, so I'm hoping that we will be pleased at the results.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 04/24/2020 10:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/24/2020 11:18 pm
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.

I'm surprised that it's already been 6 years.  It feels like it happened quickly.  But like Raptor, there were years of quiet development.

I'm sure we are all hoping for Starlink to be wildly more successful than Zune.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LouScheffer on 04/26/2020 04:19 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 04/26/2020 04:45 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 04/26/2020 05:08 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 04/27/2020 01:25 am
Hey - if I have it right, SF bay area peeps will get a high and bright Starlink view tomorrow around 9 pm, so just a heads up!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/27/2020 10:53 am
Have we seen any glimpses of the user terminals, yet?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/27/2020 07:46 pm
Have we seen any glimpses of the user terminals, yet?

No
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/27/2020 07:59 pm
There was a meeting today of the Steering Committee of the Decadal Survey on Astronomy and Astrophysics 2020 (Astro2020) on "Optical Interference from Satellite Constellations Agenda".  SpaceX participated, with Elon and about 5 other SpaceX employees presenting and answering questions.

https://twitter.com/CatHofacker/status/1254821075176886285
Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/JohnBarentine/status/1254817281823014918
Quote
.@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

Elon mentioned that long-term a size of 20k-30k satellites would be a good size for a broadband constellation.

SpaceX reiterated they'd like their whole constellation to be under 600km altitude. [as we saw in the recent FCC filing]

Early satellites will probably be replaced within 3-4 years, after that probably 4-5 years.  Future versions will have higher throughput.  [I think that may say more about the performance of the current version than the performance of the future versions.]

SpaceX employees said they are willing to work with astronomers on tracking the satellites better, performing observations on the brightness, and modelling the brightness.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 04/28/2020 03:45 am
FutureSpaceTourist collected all the Astro2020 tweets about impacts to astronomy at the Impacts of Large Satellite Constellations on Astronomy (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48302.msg2073879#msg2073879) thread, here's some additional tweets about Starlink General:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1254822296306491396

Quote
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.”

https://twitter.com/JohnBarentine/status/1254821665264959498

Quote
.@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

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1254824905889189893

Quote
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.”

https://twitter.com/JohnBarentine/status/1254824707787911168

Quote
.@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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My comment: I'm pretty sure Elon mentioned Starlink v2 will launch on Starship, so I think the “far greater throughput.” is going to come from a bigger Starlink design that will take full advantage of the fairing size and LEO capability of Starship.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/28/2020 06:52 pm
Eric Ralph has written up Elon’s presentation yesterday and included a SpaceX graphic on the sun visor design (attached):

Quote
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.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-visorsat-elon-musk-launch-plans/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tulse on 04/28/2020 07:04 pm
Is it well understood what parts of the satellites are doing the reflecting?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/28/2020 07:12 pm
It seems to be the antennas, those were mentioned several times.  (I missed Elon's initial presentation but caught the last 50 minutes of Q&A)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: theinternetftw on 04/29/2020 02:02 am
Sun reflection comes from antennas when on station and from antennas and solar panels combined when orbit raising.  There's a slide a few posts up (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.msg2073955#msg2073955) that says this.  (And if you look at the visors (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.msg2074348#msg2074348), you can see that they're shaped specifically to cover the antennas, which are the window looking things with rounded edges in the model)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 04/29/2020 02:22 am
Since February @SpaceX has asked the @FCC for authorization for 18 new @SpaceXStarlink earth stations bringing total to 23 gateways across US of which 5 are dual band (Ku+Ka). 6 Ku-band gateways with 4 antennas each = 24 22 Ka-band gateways with 8 Ka antennas each = 176

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1255181392964698113
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/29/2020 01:51 pm
SpaceX have put the Starlink presentation, in article form, on-line

https://www.spacex.com/news/2020/04/28/starlink-update

Quote
APRIL 28, 2020
STARLINK DISCUSSION | NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 04/29/2020 02:53 pm
That is incredibly detailed and fascinating to read.  Props to SpaceX for taking this so seriously.

I would have thought they would be able to retain the darkening coating with the sunshade in place, but maybe it's just not necessary at that point.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tulse on 04/29/2020 03:10 pm
I think the issue is that the dark coating on the antenna themselves has the potential for thermal problems.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 04/29/2020 03:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 04/29/2020 03:57 pm
This one at the end is particularly interesting:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 04/29/2020 04:22 pm
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)

For posterity I've converted the website article into a pdf document which is attached.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: snotis on 04/29/2020 09:16 pm
https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1255601774607638540 (https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1255601774607638540)

Quote
.@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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: snotis on 04/29/2020 09:22 pm
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/)

Quote
Elon Musk’s SpaceX as well as Paris-based Eutelsat have looked at OneWeb Global’s assets.

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/29/2020 09:51 pm
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/)

Quote
Elon Musk’s SpaceX as well as Paris-based Eutelsat have looked at OneWeb Global’s assets.

Quote
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.

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?

Doubtful SpaceX would bid more than it's actually worth to them, however Elon does love picking up existing assets on the cheap.  Both of his businesses were built on it.

The actual building near the Cape would be pretty sweet if you could build them and just transport them to the pad instead of shipping across the country.  Maybe it wouldn't be a replacement but additional capacity.

I agree that spectrum, licenses, ground stations maybe of interest. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 04/29/2020 09:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/29/2020 09:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/29/2020 11:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: yoram on 04/29/2020 11:48 pm
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.

Can you please explain? They sold  too cheaply to these customers?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 04/30/2020 08:32 am
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/)

Quote
Elon Musk’s SpaceX as well as Paris-based Eutelsat have looked at OneWeb Global’s assets.

Quote
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.

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?

Likely this. The only assets of use to SpaceX would IMO be the spectrum/frequency rights and ground station rights. Other than that OneWeb was an annoyance to SpaceX and Musk.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/30/2020 09:40 am
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.

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).

Besides. Whatever launch revenue SpaceX could earn from lofting a competitor’s satellites into orbit is dwarfed by the revenue of absorbing said competitor’s internet customers instead.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DreamyPickle on 04/30/2020 09:46 am
Quote
Musk 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/30/2020 09:51 am
Quote
Musk 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.

Who is able to compete on price with SpaceX’s launch business? Why should the same not apply to their satellite business?

Pace of innovation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/30/2020 03:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/30/2020 04:24 pm
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.
Right. Someone tweeting out the talk was too terse, and it’s possible to make this mistake in interpretation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/30/2020 08:37 pm
SpaceX might have looked at the information packet in order to see what was "under the hood" for any potential future competitor, not because they are interested in actually bidding for the assets.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/05/2020 07:41 pm
It appears that SpaceX has recently started hiring for its laser inter-satellite links.  There are 7 positions in Redmond and Hawthorne that appear relevant.  The job boards indicate that the position postings are fresh -- in the past few weeks.

Don't recall that these have been mentioned here before.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 05/05/2020 08:20 pm
Since 27 April @SpaceX has filed for 3 more Ka-band gateways in the US including first site in Alaska increasing total to 31 gateways across 26 locations:
Los Angeles, CA (Triangular flag on post34.604028,-117.454361)
Prudhoe Bay, AK (Triangular flag on post70.246556,-148.569000)
Cass County, ND (Triangular flag on post47.151694,-97.408889)

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1257763348080480256
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tomness on 05/06/2020 01:06 pm
Does SpaceX host most of these gateways or do they lease them from some else?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/06/2020 01:14 pm
Does SpaceX host most of these gateways or do they lease them from some else?

I think the point is that these are SpaceX facilities.  Not lease or rent.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/08/2020 07:09 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1258517827180392449
Quote
@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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: garcianc on 05/08/2020 09:04 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1258517827180392449
Quote
@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.

Geez. I guess "remote" really is relative. The horror, just short of 1Gbps fiber (up and down!!!). LOL

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.

If Starlink wants a pilot project, I have one for them.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 05/08/2020 09:50 pm
//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.

Sorry, are you sure StarLink will work there? Exede (and Hughes NET)  does not provide a service there (Exede has coverage in Caribbean) see https://www.satbeams.com/satellites?norad=42740
As I understand there is no permission for frequencies  ..
 
why can StarLink work there ??


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 05/08/2020 10:59 pm
...
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.
...

Then someone needs to rethink their infrastructure.  Not sure where Motorola fits in, but Ubuquiti is strictly point-to-point or broad-based WifI--and they do a very good job at it.  Have a couple Ubuquiti multi-Mbps (as in the hundreds) over 10's of km (and could go further).  And if going through 1-2 relays multi-Mbit is feasible (assuming you set everything up properly).  In short, the local comm's should be more than sufficient for what you are describing for Mbit-class traffic.  Where that lands (e.g., ISP back-haul) and link to mainland is another matter.  Is the latter the issue you are attempting to solve?  If yes, Starlink may help; if no, not likely to help unless your end-points do not have line-of-site with a relay or base-station?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 05/08/2020 11:06 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ghoti on 05/08/2020 11:15 pm
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?
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 05/09/2020 02:15 pm
In response to @amazon's concerns the @FCC has indeed requested @SpaceX to reassess collision risk for the lower altitudes and disclose how many #Starlink satellites have already lost maneuver capabilities at or above injection altitude:

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1258989095105302528
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 05/09/2020 02:16 pm
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

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1258992026646953986
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: theinternetftw on 05/09/2020 04:49 pm
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"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 05/09/2020 05:22 pm
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"
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.

And preemptively, injection altitude is now low enough that it is below ISS, and in the range of just months to deorbit, so the real question from losing maneuver capability is collision risk, which based on these factors is simply not significant at that altitude.

This tweet should be filed under "examples of obvious FUD"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 05/09/2020 10:17 pm
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)
 Pushing that when Starlink was available would be like pushing phones where someone named Mabel had to put a banana plug in the right hole to make a call.
 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/09/2020 10:26 pm
Telesat is also designing a LEO constellation.  We'll see in a few months if they actually pull the trigger on ordering it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/09/2020 11:19 pm
https://twitter.com/chanelrion/status/1259256288011333638

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 05/10/2020 10:17 am
https://twitter.com/chanelrion/status/1259256288011333638

Quote
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.
It looks just like the terminals I've seen on my father's desk 40 years ago.
MIL-STD standards don't change really.
This photo is as good statement about who the first customer is as an official statement could be.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/10/2020 01:50 pm
Is not OAN the right wing conspiracy network?

Why would they have an early Starlink connection?  Seems hard to believe, did they just slap a logo on a piece of equipment?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/10/2020 02:15 pm
Why 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 05/10/2020 07:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 05/10/2020 07:43 pm
Why 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.
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/new-small-us-air-force-satellites-could-counter-chinese-space-weapons

february 2019 news

Quote
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.
Quote
vLEO satellites are approximately 550Km from the earth’s surface ....

:D
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 05/12/2020 08:08 pm
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.

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1260279936620859392
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/13/2020 08:06 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 05/13/2020 08:16 pm
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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: salpun on 05/13/2020 08:19 pm
Do we know using official documents or the launch time where the next launch will go? Marking that would be nice.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/13/2020 08:45 pm
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.

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1260279936620859392
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 05/13/2020 08:48 pm
Quote
Do we know using official documents or the launch time where the next launch will go? Marking that would be nice.

I posted that in the Maneuvers thread:

* L7 injection RAAN relative to L1 plane 1 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.msg2079187#msg2079187).
* 17 target planes (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.msg2074064#msg2074064)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 05/14/2020 09:57 pm
https://electrek.co/2020/05/14/tesla-mystery-tower-supercharger-megacharger-starlink/
This is about an "avtimes smart tower" Edit:FlexGrid™ Colocation Ecosystem  installed at the Supercharger site in London, Ontario, Canada.
There is a picture of another of these towers unrelated to Tesla here: http://theavtimes.com/2019/10/11/smart-tower-installed-in-lancaster/

So they host multiple 4G/5G network antennas for multiple providers. Tesal has apparently said it intends to offer wifi at superchargers. There is speculation links to Starlink could also be associated with this. And of course the tower owner would pay rent to the landowner: Tesla. Tesla can likely provide battery backup for the tower.

So assuming this all ties together, Tesla gets paid rent to have this smart tower, with a range of mobile providers, giving outstanding cell coverage. Tesla sites its own wifi in it, and later adds a Starlink antenna, and maybe even sells capacity to the mobile carriers! (guess)

Lots of assumptions, but if Tesla roll this out, then it looks like a solid net income generator, instead of a drain, in order to improve the experience of Supercharger users!!!!!
( OK.... I have been told on NSF that Telesat may be complicating Starlink's access to Canadian authorizations as Canada is said to favour Telesat)
Credit the picture is from Electrek: https://electrek.co/2020/05/14/tesla-mystery-tower-supercharger-megacharger-starlink/

Edit: Thankyou gongora, I have corrected the name above. Thecorrect name is: The FlexGrid™ Colocation Ecosystem is a neutral-host, concealed smart pole that simultaneously supports 4G/5G, IoT, Wifi, security lights and cameras, carrier densification needs, private LTE networks and other wireless solutions through macro, mini macro and small cell deployments. https://landmarkdividendvids.vids.io/videos/489ddab7141ce2ccc0/flexgridtm-for-transit-stations
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 05/14/2020 10:46 pm
Are you sure Tesla is the landowner?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/14/2020 10:50 pm
That tower story doesn't actually have any connection to Starlink, other than random completely uninformed speculation on Electrek.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 05/14/2020 10:54 pm
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"FlexGrid™ Colocation Ecosystem (or buy and install it if that is possible), and pocket (most of) the rent. Thats a guess really.
Edit: to correct the tower name to "FlexGrid™ Colocation Ecosystem" (and the rent may come directly from each cell provider.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/14/2020 10:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 05/14/2020 11:46 pm
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.
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"
Plus you are right about the speculation about Starlink, which I continued. However for superchargers in remote locations I assume a Starlink transceiver on the top of that pole could enable all the other hosted phone carriers.
I guess there may be places where there is power for superchargers, but no fibre or line-of-sight links etc.... It could even be off-grid with a solar field and a powerpack, with Starlink providing all the coms including monitoring and security. So it is a highly relevant speculation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 05/15/2020 01:55 pm
CelesTrak just received state vectors from @SpaceX for the next #Starlink launch, set for May 17 at 0753 UTC. We have generated SupTLEs (assuming it will be launch 2020-030). Those are now available at https://celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/supplemental/. I will update if anything changes.

https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1261116678802309121
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 05/15/2020 02:10 pm
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.
I had serial number 1 of the Intellian V110. It was just for six months of evaluation. We went with Seatels.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/16/2020 02:14 am
Some more airborne testing with DoD coming up: 0430-EX-CN-2020 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/442_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=100295&license_seq=102054)

Sometime in the next year they will test communicating with an aircraft flying out of Edwards AFB, using a conformal antenna made by Ball.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 05/16/2020 08:06 am
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/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/16/2020 04:46 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/16/2020 05:21 pm
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?
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.
 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.

The Ka gateway dishes were listed as parabolic on the FCC paperwork.  I wonder if they're testing a few user terminals alongside their gateway dishes.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/16/2020 06:50 pm
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 05/16/2020 08:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/16/2020 11:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ShSch on 05/17/2020 02:44 am
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m05abdGSOxY
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/17/2020 03:03 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 05/17/2020 03:30 pm
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.
  I imagine you're not the only one. But they needed to get the thing talking, even if ISL wasn't ready.
 I'm still wondering if there will be user to user links without ever landing between users. A secure service completely independent of public internet would be attractive to some big spenders.
 Remember when you paid $2,000 a month for a 9600bps interstate circuit?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 05/17/2020 04:57 pm
...
Remember when you paid $2,000 a month for a 9600bps interstate circuit?

Yes.  Or $20k/mo+ if it required DC continuity (assuming you could get it...that's 1970's $'s).  Back in the old days that was a major issue.  9600, could probably get it; 19200, iffy; 56K absolutely required DC continuity, limited availability, and $$$. [1]

Thank you for the memories Ma Bell.  Amazing how far we have come.


[1] And one significant factor IMO in how arpanet and TCP/IP evolved (why those IMP's[2] were built the way they were, and why the physical topology of arpanet grew the way it did).  But those trials and tribulations have served us well in the long term... another story for another time.

[2] IMP = Internet Message Processor.  About the size of a refrigerator (good part of a full rack).  Had one in my machine room.  19.2Kb point-to-point connection to SoCal (think it was JPL) and from there the world.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/17/2020 08:46 pm
Tucked into an article about training funds from the State of California is the fact that the funds were to be used for 300 Starship and 900 Starlink positions.  We can guess that the 300 Starship positions are technicians in San Pedro, but 900 technicians on Starlink is new information.

Ground terminal manufacturing in the old Triumph building?  Sounds like enough manpower for significant volume.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/california-officials-reject-subsidies-musks-032819684.html

edit/gongora: trimmed a bit

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LouScheffer on 05/18/2020 03:18 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 05/18/2020 07:57 pm
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.

I'm going to be guilty here of not reading the article before commenting, but in my experience the situation is even worse than it appears, since often a county will be listed as having broadband available if *any* residence in the county has broadband. Historically that sort of interpretation has been used by the telecoms to make an area appear more represented than it actually is.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 05/19/2020 02:55 pm
Historically that sort of interpretation has been used by the telecoms to make an area appear more represented than it actually is.

Either that, or they just lie (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ajit-pai-says-hes-fixed-giant-fcc-error-that-exaggerated-broadband-growth/) about (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/04/att-gave-fcc-false-broadband-coverage-data-in-parts-of-20-states/) it (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/fcc-tries-to-bury-finding-that-verizon-and-t-mobile-exaggerated-4g-coverage/).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 05/19/2020 09:03 pm
@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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mpusch on 05/19/2020 09:19 pm
@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

Reading the rest of the tweets from that account shows a pretty biased viewpoint.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/19/2020 09:19 pm
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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 05/19/2020 09:21 pm
The original source of this information was already posted in another Starlink thread:

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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: theinternetftw on 05/19/2020 09:48 pm
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.

At least 3, perhaps 4 of the 6 dead V1.0 sats were from the first V1.0 launch (hard to tell where the third ~550km dead sat is).

Another is confirmed as being from V1.0 Launch 5, another I can't find (the 401km one).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/19/2020 10:17 pm
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.
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.


They can’t just turn them off. They have a benchmark to meet or they’ll loose the license. If they keep them running but don’t use them the competition might call foul. It’s a problem with one foot in engineering and one in business. Elon probably has some wiley plan.


My networking experience dated back to Ethernet garden hose cabling and modem routers. The tech end is waaay past my pay grade.


Phil



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/20/2020 12:01 am
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 05/20/2020 12:23 am
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
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.
 Smack in the middle of the future of humanity in the Cosmos, and still no decent service. Unless someone knows a login for that non SSID broadcasting wifi next door.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LouScheffer on 05/20/2020 01:23 am
Here's another article on broadband in the USA.  It states:
 (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ajit-pai-says-hes-fixed-giant-fcc-error-that-exaggerated-broadband-growth/)
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LouScheffer on 05/20/2020 01:29 am
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). 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/20/2020 01:55 am
The original source of this information was already posted in another Starlink thread:

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.)
Mmmmok.

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?

That's... not at all how orbits work. Current TLEs, which SpaceX publishes, are far more important than if a satellite is maneuverable or not. Most tracked objects can't maneuver anyway. If a conjunction is predicted, the operators get on the phone or get working on a maneuver.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/20/2020 02:29 am
@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.
Yup.

EDIT: Geez, holy cow. Fear-mongering about Starlink satellites "killing" people by citing a really old article which doesn't mention SpaceX went to a fully demisable design for all new Starlink satellites... This twitter account is straight misinformation (because there's zero chance someone who has been paying attention to this field would make that mistake accidentally).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/20/2020 02:52 am
Yeah, this is what I was worried about, FCC is forbidding SpaceX to bid in low latency tier in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (found by reddit user Inquisitor_Generalis):

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-364457A1.pdf

Quote
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

Hopefully their plan is not too dependent on getting a large amount of subsidy from this.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/20/2020 03:02 am
I find the FCC's rationale for rejection pretty thin. Once you solve the physical limitation of distance, achieving appropriate latency is not a major challenge. SpaceX achieved decent latency (below 100ms, I believe) even with their first test satellites. I would aggressively challenge this if I were SpaceX.

Starlink will make a greater difference in rural access than probably any other single player that is bidding for these subsidies just due to the nation-wide availability.

EDIT:It's fair to me for the FCC to hold the feet of whoever receives these funds to the fire to ensure they deliver to actual rural customers or they'll get funding clawed back... If such a mechanism isn't in place, it desperately needs to be since plenty of terrestrial players have taken advantage of similar rural broadband efforts without delivering. But just rejecting an application out of hand like this is ridiculous and is kind of suspicious to me.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/20/2020 03:46 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/20/2020 04:29 am
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.

It doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 05/20/2020 05:00 am
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.

They then continue lying about the absence of examples, when SpaceX has tested their satellites. The military has been involved with tests of their satellites. The latency possible is simply not something they can reject with such arguments, when SpaceX is in possession of data.


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 05/20/2020 06:09 am
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/20/2020 06:23 am
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.

My translation: The outcome was predetermined, but some who compiled the report deliberately based the conclusions on flimsy (dare I say false) justifications, knowing that those could be successfully challenged in court? Subtly exposing the biased nature of the process in doing so.

Or maybe I’m just reading what I want to read in your statement.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 05/21/2020 12:50 am
Here comes in-depth background on the @FCC's Public Notice on the Rural Development Opportunity Fund (#RDOF) released yesterday and how it could limit @SpaceX in bidding with #Starlink for the $16 billion rural-broadband program, the company hoped for.


https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1263228690642735104
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 05/21/2020 01:29 am
1. If the premise for the decision is demonstrably incorrect, will that give SX grounds to sue? If SX can successfully argue it was deliberately incorrect to disadvantage SX is that more grounds to sue? If SX is being asked to make a false statement, that Starlink is high latency", and chooses only to be truthful, then they are barred from bidding! Is this just a play on words, or a valid proof of discrimination?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/elon-musks-promise-of-low-latency-broadband-meets-skepticism-at-fcc/
Quote from: John Brodkin Ars Technika
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.
2a. However in impoverished remote rural communities it could subsidise consumer receivers, etc. and lessen SX's costs.
3. If SpaceX has a fast rollout, affordable prices, and of course excellent latency, and good bandwidth, they could dominate the whole rural-unserved market, leaving few customers for the auction winners... who will then be unable to claim their payouts as they won't have reached enough qualifying customers! This might happen so fast that infrastructure investments cannot be recouped!
4. SpaceX has until the 9th June vote to prove them wrong, and upset the vote, if that is possible.
5. One argument not mentioned, is that fibre etc, once installed, willl be taken ove by another provider if the original goes out of business, and remains a working asset for many years. Starlink depends on SpaceX and Starling surviving, and in re-investment in order to continually renew the constellation. There is a non zero risk of failure. This could result in the total loss of rural broadband funds given to SX compared with a fibre based terrestrial ISP. Personally I believe Starlink will be amazingly successful, and so profitable it does not need this subsidy.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/21/2020 01:39 am
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.  If SpaceX wants to refute that they need to demonstrate their network performance with their consumer user terminals running through the network in their licensed configuration (using the Ka-band gateways).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cuddihy on 05/21/2020 02:11 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/21/2020 03:32 am
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.

It's as if the FCC is intentionally designing this rationale to exclude NGSO constellations from either being eligible for the subsidies on the one hand or only being eligible once they don't need them on the other. It's ridiculous, and advantages ground based networks unfairly.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/21/2020 03:33 am
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!

There are already requirements for the ISPs to deploy, so excluding them at this stage makes no sense except to advantage ground networks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/21/2020 03:36 am
...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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/21/2020 03:46 am
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.

Quote
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.

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:

Quote
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."

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.


And no, I don't buy that "inexperience" argument... Some of this stuff is straight penalizing non-incumbency when there's no way that a fully proved system can bid with the full proved performance of their system. And incumbents have plenty of history of taking advantage of such subsidy programs; it's not like they've been angels.... in fact, we really shouldn't even need this subsidy at this point as they already were supposed to provide broadband access under previous programs... (if anything, such incumbents--which I think includes most of the big players--should be *barred* from competing)

And in general... WHY do incumbents need subsidies?? Why do we want to strengthen already-existing monopolies? We should be *encouraging* new entrants, not punishing them!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cuddihy on 05/21/2020 04:11 am
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.

Quote
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.

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...

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.

You’re acting like Starlink terminals are available on Amazon tomorrow. Like the EELV award, it maybe excessively long by a couple of years, but it’s historically a long-term market required to make investments in infrastructure like this. Verizon ain’t rolling out miles of fiber to podunk for a 2 year program.

Quote
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:

Quote
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."

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.

You really aren’t familiar with how large infrastructure projects are financed? It’s not with a one year payoff.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/21/2020 04:23 am
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.

Quote
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.

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...

What basis does the FCC (stop referring to Pai, he’s just the current agency head, not its overlord)
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
...

You really aren’t familiar with how large infrastructure projects are financed? It’s not with a one year payoff.
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.


...and this is not about just Starlink. Arguably, OneWeb needs this even more in order to rise from the ashes. (And yes, I support a rescue of OneWeb.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 05/21/2020 09:26 am
...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.
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 has a deliberately shorter on-orbit life, linked to the chosen strategy of a low service life of as little as 5 years, so later generations can be upgrades to the latest technology.
Starlink is developing a lot of its own custom electronics, like phased arrays... I don't know if the others use mainly "off the shelf" available commercial products. Does this mean that continued maintenance of the constellation requires the continued existence of the design and manufacturing ecosystem SX has built.
So taken together the other constellations are in safe higher orbits that need little maintenance. They are expensive traditional satellites with a long service life and might be easier to transfer to a new operator with a useful lifetime remaining. Starlink isn't!  (I like Starlink's approach and expect massive success)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/21/2020 10:21 am
I don't see this as the fault of FCC, they're under enormous pressure from existing telecom companies, and possible congressional pressure too, I'm not sure Ajit Pai has much choice in this matter. Also in today's political environment, awarding multi-billion government subsidies to a company run by a billionaire could generate some controversy, even though it shouldn't.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cuddihy on 05/21/2020 10:42 am
This program plain wasn't intended by Congress to be (another) aerospace technology subsidy! That's a worthy goal, but that isn't the purpose here. It's intended to get population in  rural communities improved connectivity, NOW, not "potentially" when a game-change, paradigm shift way of doing it becomes available.

Because if Starlink doesn't pan out to provide what  is needed --e.g. improved connectivity to what is available to rural folks now, at a lower price -- then regardless of the gains to US space technology, it hasn't remotely achieved the objectives.

It's high payoff no question. If Starlink can meet these marks, the world will actually beat a path to their door, subsidy for a legacy TELCO competitor or not. When the subsidy ends, Starlink will pick up those customers& may even if they're being serviced adequately by a TELCO.

But *if* Starlink can't provide the service, or more likely, just can't do it at the B/W / latency & timelines of the program goals, then FCC would be left holding the bag -- exactly the way One Web investors feel today, only with media & Congress tearing FCC to shreds when the riskiness was evident at the start.

I would not be surprised if the One Web bankruptcy played a factor in the evaluator's risk tolerance for LEO, particularly as tight financing markets for new tech usually correlate with low probability of hitting performance & schedule goals.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 05/21/2020 12:12 pm
If they want improved connectivity NOW, the only way to provide it is Starlink. How many years will fiber infrastructure take to reach most of the rural people?

Edit: NOW as within a year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 05/21/2020 12:57 pm
 I dont think Starlink should be able to claim that subsidy. This subsidy is not meant for Starlink, no matter how you see it. In fact, when it was made, the legislators might not even have had Starlink on their radar. Rural areas always have problems with connectivity. They want to solve this. And the only way it worked in the past was putting fibres in the ground. That is infrastructure which is expensive! So it gives subsidies out to companies providing internet service. Otherwise only cities would get it because its simply not economical for these companies to go rural.

That is the EXACT solution of Starlink. It provides connectivity where infrastructure is prohibitively expensive. Starlink is there so we dont need this infrastructure and this investment, and frankly that subsidy.

For Starlink to claim that subsidy is like an airline claiming subsidies for highways. Even though planes dont use highways, they as well provide connectivity between cities. Planes are the reason we dont use highways (as much) for long distance travel.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/21/2020 02:43 pm
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 05/21/2020 02:46 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/21/2020 02:50 pm
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!

NGSO constellations are excluded from certain categories in which they have not yet ever offered service.  They can compete in other categories.  Spaced based internet has not yet met the technical requirements.  It might soon if SpaceX meets their goals, but it hasn't happened yet.  Not all of the awards in these auctions don't go to massive cable internet incumbents.  Much of it goes to regional companies.  You really need to come up with something other than "SpaceX should get all the money because I want them to."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/21/2020 04:08 pm
I don't understand all the attention to the FCC.

The bigger future for Starlink is international.    The US and Canada are the starter markets to prime the pump.

Edit: The laser interlinks are going to be critical.  Can't wait to hear about them being ready for launch.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 05/21/2020 05:14 pm
You really need to come up with something other than "SpaceX should get all the money not be summarily excluded from getting any of the money because I want them to."
Fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 05/21/2020 05:18 pm
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/

^ This. It feels exactly like the block buy.

Quote
There's more text that explicitly disadvantages non-incumbents:

Quote
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."

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/).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ccdengr on 05/21/2020 05:25 pm
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.

If Starlink has a documented demonstration that their system is low-latency in some realistic use case right now, then I'd like to see that document.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 05/21/2020 06:16 pm
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.)

https://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-82-million-contract-for-2018-falcon-9-launch-of-gps-3-satellite/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ccdengr on 05/21/2020 06:31 pm
What do you mean by last time?
Connect America:
https://spacenews.com/spacex-wont-seek-u-s-rural-broadband-subsidies-for-starlink-constellation/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 05/21/2020 07:10 pm
What do you mean by last time?
Connect America:
https://spacenews.com/spacex-wont-seek-u-s-rural-broadband-subsidies-for-starlink-constellation/
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.

There is a good chance that they weren't ready to commit at that time, and protested mostly to create precedence (and prevent the creation of bad precedence). If I am reading right, there is more money on the table now, and with actual service ready within months, I expect that they actually intend to bid this time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ccdengr on 05/21/2020 08:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/21/2020 10:52 pm
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.
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.

In order for the subsidies to serve the enabling, risk-reduction purpose, they must be available when technical capability is demonstrated, not pushing the goalposts all the way to “mass market” before they can even *bid*.

That’s just reinforcing monopolistic competitors and undercutting the main market for NGSO constellations in the first place. If your goal was to stop any NGSo competition from threatening terrestrial broadband monopolies, hard to think of a better way to do that than to take away their prime customer base while reinforcing the market position of the monopolies. Remove the ability for NGSOs to get their foot in the door, so to speak.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/21/2020 11:18 pm
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.  They don't give a bunch of overlapping awards and whoever turns on service first gets the money.  The awards are divided up by territories and if the winners don't offer service, then those people may just not get served 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 05/21/2020 11:52 pm
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.

You continue to ignore that the FCC is making blatant misrepresentations of multiple things as their excuse.

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.

(A couple of posts pointing out the horrible strawman in your previous post mysteriously disappeared, one wasn't very civil, but mine simply pointed out that I feel insulted by your strawman argument, along withocountering some of your other points.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/21/2020 11:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 05/22/2020 12:02 am
The thing that really smells about the rural broadband stuff is that people seem to have short memories. I believe in the late 90's there was a push for rural broadband as fiber, along with metro FTTH, similar to what is being discussed now. Basically the korean fiber rollout at the time (home 100Mbit fiber was truly groundbreaking in an economic sense) was shaming the rest of the world so the FCC felt that they had to look progressive. The incumbents took the FCC's money, then said they would do a cellular rollout instead, but the cellular buildout naturally focused on metro areas, so rural consumers got robbed, again.

The incumbents never were publicly chastised for their actions by the FCC. There was zero clawback of the funds. In some cases the rural broadband initiative was used as a justification for abandoning large portions of copper line physical plant (the greatest cost center for telco's due to ongoing maintenance) and moving customers to either bad versions of DSL over copper that no longer was doing analog voice due to excessive degradation coupled with VoIP telephone adapters, or using SIM card equipped phone adapters. The long promised metro FTTH petered out as fiber to the curb/pole or fiber to the neighborhood after a very late start, only after 2G/3G wireless went national.

So I am genuinely suspicious of rulings that not only favor incumbents, paying out from universal service funds intended to support rural consumers that are not profitable without a subsidy, but happening exactly when the incumbents need a giant recapitalization of the wireless infrastructure due to 5G rollouts (which have insane capital requirements). 5G may be snappy, but only when you are near high frequency towers which have poor range (thus ideal for metro deployments). The old MetroPCS infrastructure that Sprint bought up had high tower density, so at least they have that going for them, but most others will have to acquire new tower space to reach the densities needed. The fiber to those new towers needs to be upgraded, especially if they want to do datacenter baseband processing. All this means rural customers are an afterthought.

If anything, NGSO constellations actually prefer to support rural customers by design, due to link saturation. You would think the solution that specifically desires rural customers would be preferable to systems that tilt towards urban customers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 05/22/2020 12:12 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/22/2020 12:14 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 05/22/2020 12:39 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: r1279 on 05/22/2020 12:41 am
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/22/2020 12:44 am
Agreed the aforementioned proof of affordable broadband user terminal equipment (purchase or rental agreements) for NGSO's such as Starlink is not yet been demonstrated. However GSO's do have broadband terminal equipment and complete with subscribers but because of high latency they do not qualify with 150ms+ minimum latency.

It is for SpaceX and Starlink to demonstrate a working system that provides an affordable service to the rural customer with broadband and low <100ms latency capability. SpaceX is fast approaching this point but we do not have info about how capable, affordable, or just how soon such will be revealed. We have indications about bandwidth from AF tests. We have math that shows theoretically what the latency could be with what is considered now prety standard internet node switching hardware.

But until we know, we just don't know as yet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/22/2020 12:51 am
It’s totally fair to say that to receive funds you have to have the technical capability proven since yes, this isn’t a tech demo fund.

It is NOT okay for Pai to assert you have to have already scaled out to mass market now to even be able to bid fairly within the next 10 years.

The former is reasonable. The FCC has the capacity to judge whether a solution can technically do what is claimed; it’s just engineering, not magic. The latter just sounds like you’re just trying to entrench and enrich encumbents while effectively shutting out new competitors (whose main market is actually those exact rural customers!) for a whole decade.

It’s simply not right.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/22/2020 01:01 am
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)
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).

From the standpoint of business SpaceX is already >50% through it's initial infrastructure emplacement. It is only needing the shipment of the user terminals to the subscribers assuming there are any terminals to ship. But right now that is the debate by us and the FCC. Until an end to end system is demonstrated and reviewed. The issues of it's actual existence remains. Without solutions for this problem I doubt SpaceX would have proceeded this far and at this level of expense. Each deployment of 60 sats launch plus manufacture ~$50M each with 7 total so far or $350M spent in evidence if not significantly more than that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/22/2020 01:27 am
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)
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. ...
Same for OneWeb, and now they're bankrupt.

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.
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.

To much further and we get into the murky world of legal business with what the the FCC can do and cannot do arbitrarily without significant prior notice. Likely a matter of years. It would legally be the same as if the FCC said that because there is a terrestrial cable TV provider in your area you cannot have SAT TV installed. The Commerce Deptartment would bash the FCC's head in.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: watermod on 05/22/2020 02:00 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Billium on 05/22/2020 02:24 am
I totally understand that the FCC requires the technology be proven to qualify, but when a new technology is already being deployed at scale and looks like it may be proven with 6 months, it seems irrational to start making the awards now for the next decade.

This has the same feeling as the block buy between the airforce and ULA. I mean Starlink could fail technologically or economically, but they are spending billions on it, it would be an epic fail. Making the award now would seem to stifle innovation and competition.

In my opinion they should delay the award, or qualify Starlink provisionally that they demonstrate within x time or loose any award they receive to be rebid. I suppose this is outside control of 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/22/2020 02:34 am
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?

The FCC hasn't delayed anything with Starship.  You may be getting your government agencies confused.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/22/2020 02:42 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/22/2020 04:17 am
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.

Remember Musk also repeatedly pointed out all other megaconstellation attempts failed (due in part for the same reason terrestrial providers don’t want to bother without a subsidy: capital cost). Starlink isn’t saying they’re able to compete against subsidized competitors; on the contrary, they repeatedly say they could still fail.

And this goes beyond Starlink. It’d be pretty bad if the only NGSO constellation that makes it is Starlink. We need robust competition there as well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 05/22/2020 05:11 am
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.

Not needing subsidies is one thing. Having to compete without subsidies against providers that get $20 billion is another. It will probably take a significant number of customers away from Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cuddihy on 05/22/2020 08:18 am
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.

Quote
There's more text that explicitly disadvantages non-incumbents:

Quote
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."

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/).

This is like the block buy if SpaceX is lucky! SpaceX fans will fume that they’ve unfairly been excluded from a decade of contracts, then when all is settled there will be some small minority of buys in the later years that the can actually meet requirements for.

For the block buy settlement, how many launches has SpaceX actually been eligible for, exactly? And it’s almost up...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 05/22/2020 10:08 am
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.

Well, suing DoD over the block buy worked out, but then again they were trying to sell something that was demonstrably cheaper to a customer that has to factor that. The FCC doesn't buy anything directly really, they just take money usually.

Hrm...

I wonder if Musk could sweet talk the enforcement division by flying RF sensors for them, so they can realtime hunt illegal radio stations...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/22/2020 01:56 pm
It's not only that Starlink wouldn't get subsidies for providing rural service.  Also, they would be subsidizing others because their service will be taxed for the rural broadband fund!

It makes no sense in any rational universe.

By the way, I don't think they will get very far with a lawsuit.  This is not the EELV situation.  The FCC is by design meant to be more resistant to lawsuits.  But there may be a delay in the bidding that allows SpaceX to demonstrate the technology beforehand.  Don't know whether that demonstration would have any practical impact in turning this decision around.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/22/2020 05:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/22/2020 05:55 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/22/2020 06:17 pm
The total is $20B.  Phase 1 (the auction later this year) is $16B.  Phase 2 is $4B sometime in the future.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 05/22/2020 06:36 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/22/2020 06:38 pm
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?

It should be a completely separate auction process whenever it actually occurs.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/23/2020 07:08 pm
NGSO broadband providers and terrestrial cable or other data transport methods are near opposites in their business case models when it comes to subscriber density requirements per sq km for economic viability. But they do compete for the same middle ground.

NGSO's are superior in their ability to service very low subscriber per sq km without significantly more infrastructure costs than servicing moderate subscriber per sq km. Also at high subscriber levels per sq km NGSO's capability and performance drops and to handle this case significant infrastructure costs would be required (many more sats or much smaller and more microwave beam spots).

For broadband terrestrial the best costs/profits is when subscribers per sq km value is high. For NGSO's best cost/profit is when subscribers per sq km is moderate to low. But with subsidies broadband terrestrial will have a market competitive advantage (maybe) to Starlink in the moderate subscribers per sq km markets.

As in everything the real free market is brutal. It pics winners (survivors) which is sometimes not what is expected or best technologies. The technical competition between VHS and BETA is one of those examples showing how subtleties in the choice drivers can elude those making marketing decisions.

The real controversy is FCC (US Government) is again trying to pick winners and not the market.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 05/23/2020 09:51 pm
Patricia Cooper, SpaceX's Vice President of Satellite Government Affairs is confirmed as a panelist for the Satellite Industry Association and  American Astronomical Society Webinar on Tues, May 26th at 3:00 pm (ET) titled "Impacts of Satellite Constellations on Optical Astronomy. REGISTER at https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_nnQhkonVR66axYN3xBfuOw (https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_nnQhkonVR66axYN3xBfuOw)

Webinar agenda:

- Welcome from SIA
- Introduction to and summary of the main topic by Megan Donahue, AAS President
- Overview of impact models from the astronomical community by Pat Seitzer, representing the AAS Committee on Light Pollution, Radio Interference, and Space Debris
- Collaboration with industry from the research community perspective by Tony Tyson, Chief Scientist for the Vera Rubin Observatory (formerly Large Synoptic Survey Telescope)
- Patricia Cooper, Vice-President of SpaceX, operator of the Starlink satellite constellation, speaks to the company's experience collaborating with the astronomical community
- Joel Parriott, AAS Deputy Executive Officer and Director of Public Policy, covers the larger astronomical community's efforts to form partnerships with industry and advertises an upcoming technical workshop on this topic
- Q&A session moderated by SIA

https://twitter.com/SIA_satellite/status/1263120237454602245
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jak Kennedy on 05/23/2020 10:05 pm
Although I think the whole thing is screwy by excluding SpaceX the bigger picture is they could scrap the 20 billion award and rural broadband will become available anyway when Starlink is operational.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 05/23/2020 10:41 pm
Since 12 satellites have lost maneuverability, does that mean they have also lost attitude control and can no longer orient their antennas to the ground?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 05/23/2020 10:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2020 07:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 05/26/2020 04:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 05/26/2020 05:10 pm
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.

You're an optimist for assuming they will even put up new rural towers. I've watched the big telecoms play this game for decades. At best they will provide service for a small corner of a county then claim the whole county as broadband capable -- and nobody checks them on it.

Any subsides and stimulus they get is just a gift basket as far as they are concerned -- no strings attached.

Starlink really is the only hope for the near future.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/27/2020 02:21 am
To show just how much of a cost struggle providing terrestrial broadband to rural. Take the case of a single road where average distance between subscribers is as little as 1/2 a mile. 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.

This case gives an example of how much subsidy per subscriber is needed to make up the gap in infrastructure  costs of from $600 to >$5,000 per subscriber. At an average cost gap of $2,000. $1B in subsidy only pays to provide infrastructure for 500,000 subscribers. $20B would at most subsidize access for just 10,000,000 subscribers. The total size of the rural broadband market is 60,000,000. This subsidy is unlikely to help most of those needing service the most which leaves an NGSO service like Starlink as their only hope where the revenue per year per 1,000,000 subscribers for Starlink is estimated at ($100/month subscribes price) $1.2B. Just 10 million subscribers is $12B in revenue per year just for the US which would service those least likely to be serviced by this new initiative or anytime in the next decade.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 05/27/2020 02:47 am
Starlink 67 and Starlink 1087 are both approaching reentry, currently in  196 x 205 km and 203 x 216 km orbits respectively

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1265362072180797446
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/27/2020 03:21 am
https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/1265389592687017988

Quote
$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.

This is from today's Viasat earnings call, so there's a chance FCC could revert its decision on preventing LEO constellation from bidding on low latency tier?

Also interesting to see Viasat joining the LEO constellation game.

Edit: Nevermind, it seems they anticipate the rules will be changed in the next phase

Quote
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.

https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2020/05/26/viasat-inc-vsat-q4-2020-earnings-call-transcript.aspx
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: tbellman on 05/27/2020 08:23 am
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.

Are connection fees for fiber to the home not a thing in the US?

Here in Sweden, we typically have to pay a fee to get fiber connected to our house.  Regardless of if the fiber is laid by the municipality (very common here) or is a purely commercial fiber.  In the city where I live, the municipality charges 27,500 SEK, roughly 3000 USD, to connect your house, if they have already laid fiber in street outside.  If they haven't yet, it becomes more expensive (but usually not the full cost; they assume others in the area will also want to be connected later).  The commercial fiber companies also do it similarly.

Out in the countryside, it is fairly common for local cooperatives to contract with some company to lay fiber to the houses in the cooperative, and then of course the members of the cooperative have to pay for that.  Usually that company gets a monopoly as ISP over that fiber for a few years, but after that has to let other ISPs use the fibers as well to provide services.  (Of course, if you live far enough out in the woods, there might not be a cooperative you can share costs with...)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 05/27/2020 01:12 pm
I guess it depends on state and county regulations. In my experience, if the distance exceeds a certain limit, you have to pay upfront for connection. Starlink's big advantage in rural areas will be the cost of equipment compared to running a line. Low latency is a bonus.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 05/27/2020 03:32 pm
So do we expect starlink to beat fiber on latency?
Without optical ISL?
With optical ISL?

I would guess both but definitely with ISL.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/27/2020 03:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ccdengr on 05/27/2020 03:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 05/27/2020 03:51 pm
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

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/27/2020 04:09 pm
That one dude that does the Starlink simulations showed that it’s possible to beat fiber latency even without ISLs.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/27/2020 05:43 pm
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.


This is definitely your lane. I am but an egg. What sort of distance do your latency numbers cover or am I missing something on latency measurement?


Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/27/2020 06:24 pm
There is a kind of minimum latency for Starlink, too. Maybe 8-10ms or so to go up and then back down, twice. With nearline storage situated like 40km or less from the end customer, you could beat that with fiber and there's almost nothing Starlink could do about it, physics-wise (besides co-locating servers on the Starlink birds).

But that's not happening with rural broadband (it's only an urban/suburban thing, for obvious reasons) and is only applicable for a small minority of use cases anyway.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ccdengr on 05/27/2020 06:41 pm
Does anyone even know how the FCC defines latency for RDOF?  I poked around a bit but couldn't find a technical definition.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 05/27/2020 07:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 05/27/2020 07:18 pm
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.

and how are you testing it?
ping
speedtest*
?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 05/27/2020 08:28 pm
Here comes a summary of the 8 new or modified filings from @KeplerComms, Mangata Networks, New Spectrum Satellite, @SES_Satellites, @SpaceX, @Telesat, @ViasatInc and @OneWeb for a total of 81,195 NGSO satellites as part of the @FCC's 2nd processing round:

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1265664868440584192
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 05/27/2020 08:38 pm
The Starlink 67 satellite, which has been operating in a low orbit, seems to have reentered today around 1030 UTC over China, India and the Indian Ocean.

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1265698043279675394
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/27/2020 10:15 pm
For those who haven't listened to Irene Klotz's interviews with Elon and Gwynne

In his interview with Irene Klotz in the run-up to DM-2, Musk states that...

Quote from: Musk
The 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.

and Gwynne said they hope to begin Starlink service this year in more of a beta mode, roll out more publicly after about 14 launches.
https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1265659271938785280
https://t.co/KNfBuMnPPs?amp=1

Discussion of the new SpaceX filing for their second generation constellation is over in the FCC filings thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2087034#msg2087034

A summary of yesterday's filings in the FCC's second processing round for Ku-/Ka-band constellations (10 total in the round) can be found here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41647.msg2087277#msg2087277
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 05/27/2020 10:44 pm
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.

In the late 90's the FCC was effectively promising rural FTTH via subsidies due to the huge DSL/fiber push in Korea showing the way to real home broadband internet, and those subsidies were taken by incumbents to launch national 2G/3G wireless networks instead. If I remember correctly, the promised broadband speeds were around that range as well (to provide a DSL/cable DOCSIS loophole) but they were promising fiber even in that era. Arguably a fiber deployment would have been cheaper then due to lower labor costs as well...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 05/28/2020 12:31 am
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

Pinging google can lead to skewed results so I would take that with a block of salt. There are other routing oddities as well which can skew results for major internet sites.

For instance, google DNS (8.8.8.8) uses anycast routing to return name resolution from the ISP PoP closest to you, not a fixed physical location.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/28/2020 01:25 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 05/28/2020 11:36 am
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.

Are the speedtest sites reporting one-way and ping is reporting round trip?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 05/30/2020 01:34 am
Alexa Skill to get time and trajetcory of the next visible Starlink pass. #starlink #starlinksatellites @SpaceXStarlink@StarlinkUpdates
@alexa99 @alexadevs #AmazonEcho

"Alexa, open Starlink Tracker"
"Next Starlink pass is in 3h33min going from SW to E"

https://twitter.com/jordi_porta/status/1266363983956545548
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 06/01/2020 10:59 pm
Animation of @SpaceX's second-generation #starlink proposal: https://vimeo.com/424500440. Animation by @richard_e_cole
 
Animation stills and configuration below.

https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1267524928632262658
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 06/04/2020 05:37 pm
CelesTrak is already generating SupTLEs for individual #Starlink satellites from today’s launch, using @SpaceX ephemeris. As can be seen here, the 1 VisorSat is STARLINK-1436 (as identified by @SpaceX).

https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1268426588485414912
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: tommy099431 on 06/04/2020 08:10 pm
Could someone make an animation of what it will look like with all Starlink satellites launched and orbiting? I be willing to pay for it, I might end of using it for a small write up.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 06/05/2020 06:28 pm
Elon Musk: Starlink's greatest hurdle is user terminals not satellites - Business Insider

https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1268897329207103488
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 06/05/2020 09:04 pm
SpaceX is targeting June 24 for the tenth Starlink mission, per SpaceNews.

As I noted yesterday, the ninth Starlink mission is scheduled for June 12/13. SpaceX also has a GPS launch scheduled scheduled for June 30.

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1268997874559225856
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/06/2020 09:03 pm
With 2 more Starlink launches in June and with four more in July (2 more) and August (2 more). The milestone of 14 batches of 60 sats will be reached in September. Since it seems to take about 60 days for the last launch of sats to become operational at their orbital positions. That puts Beta service operations start on or before 1 Nov 2020. As Musk has said many times getting user terminals costs down as well as their ease of use is very difficult. The most difficult thing for the user is attaching the antenna outside so wind don't blow it away and to run the wire (power and possibly an ethernet cable to go to a wifi router/switch inside the building). No pointing skills needed. Actually easier than a regular HD TV antenna because you don't have to point it at the TV stations and keep going back to adjust it until you get a good compromise on signals between multiple stations. HD TV antenna (fastenning antenna for wind stability, wire run, pointing). Starlink UT (fastenning antenna for wind stability, wire run).

What I am getting at here is that most users can handle their own installation. Only needs to have the UT shipped to the user with an added Installation kit that has a premade wire run of a standard length (possible options for different lengths of wire -with different prices). SpaceX doesn't need a huge number of professional installers across the US. They could offer an online course, registry and installation certificate for any professional independent installation. The registry is used to forward contacts from someone wanting someone else to install their UT.

As an added thought. SpaceX will need a Starlink online shoppers/customer service portal with various products as well as subscriber accounts access, etc. Products: UT's, Installation Kits, Wifi Routers (resell of other manufacturers products), service bundles (could even include TV streaming various bundles or Phone over TCPIP [along with a phone device).

Without any insights as to just how close SpaceX is to solving both the technical and manufacture hurdles to be able to manufacture initial a few 100K UT and then ramping up to a few million a year. The full capabilities of Starlink to generate revenue and profits will be unknown. Not only to us but to SpaceX as well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/06/2020 09:17 pm
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.

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4748311002?gh_jid=4748311002
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 06/06/2020 09:43 pm
Wonderful quote on the philosopy behind Starlink from the AMA:

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/06/2020 10:17 pm
Yeh, the SpaceX software AMA (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/gxb7j1/we_are_the_spacex_software_team_ask_us_anything/) on Reddit is great.  Some favorites...

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/06/2020 10:35 pm
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.

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4748311002?gh_jid=4748311002
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.

They still need significant numbers of UTs, 1000s by Nov 2020. To go "operational" producing 50 a month just will not suffice. Need at least 250 a month just to have 1000 by 1 Nov. The ramp up of production needs to be quick since there is likely only 4 months available to produce units for the initial Beta Operations start. Designs will likely iterate fast over the next year 2021 as well as increases in production rates.

Note: SpaceX also needs a rugged mil-spec design for DOD evaluation trials by 2021/2022. Also depending on yearly quantity sold to DOD and the unit prices ($1000 [likely] to as high as $10,000 [unlikely]) yields a possible profit just from sale of units of $20M or more at 100k units per year that would continue over multiple years. Then profits from the comm services contract of another $20M+ per 100K units in operation. At end of 5 years profits from comm services sold to DOD could easily reach $100M.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 06/07/2020 05:11 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tomness on 06/07/2020 01:14 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/07/2020 02:25 pm
What does Elon mean when he says they are still working to reduce user terminal cost?

My thought is that he is talking primarily about all of the costs that are not impacted by scale effects -- i.e., all of the inherent costs no matter whether you are talking about making a thousand or making a million.  This would be on an all-in basis, including customer service costs.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 06/07/2020 03:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/07/2020 03:32 pm
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.

I don't think that is the most challenging part of Starlink.  America has a massive amount of retail options for serving customers.  Another reason to launch in the US first.

It will interesting when it's global and you are trying to distribute hardware and retrieve funds from individuals in rural areas scattered across the globe.

But then Elon did build PayPal.  So I think they'll get it sorted just fine.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/07/2020 04:03 pm
Elon Musk: Starlink's greatest hurdle is user terminals not satellites - Business Insider

https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1268897329207103488
Does anyone have the source info for that, not a Tweet link of a paywalled article?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: salpun on 06/07/2020 04:05 pm
Elon Musk interview
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hdmlhdGlvbndlZWsubGlic3luLmNvbS9yc3M/episode/ZGE3YTZmNzItZWY3ZS00MTNkLTk3YzAtYThmZDIxZDVkZTZk?hl=en&ep=6

Gwynne Shotwell
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/podcast-spacex-coo-prospects-starship-launcher
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 06/07/2020 04:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 06/07/2020 04:59 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/07/2020 05:32 pm
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?

Traditional, stationary GEO
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.

100% agree, the only way that is useful is for the early testing with a smaller number of customers. 

I admit that I'm a little surprised after the 5-6 years that Starlink has been in the works that the consumer antenna cost hasn't been handled by now. 

EM said he thinks it will take a few years to get sorted, so he must see a technology path to bring the cost down. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 06/07/2020 05:34 pm
For "high" speed broadband? You are talking 5K plus. You're talking about Viasat or Iridium as the providers.

Even the low speed ( we're talking 2,400 baud speeds) is around $600 plus a monthly sub. I've seen some high speed terminals come in at 20/30K for the equipment.


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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 06/07/2020 05:50 pm
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.
First VSAT  was  PES (Personal Earth Station)  from Hughes Networs System.   1990..1995 years
Market Price ca, 3..5.000 USD    for 1.8 m dish + 2 Watt + modem

2005...2010   Ku band, 1,2 m dish + 2 W + HN7000?  price for export  1000...1100 USD

Now 
HughesNet uses Jupiter-2 generation VSAT
 Ka band,   76 cm dish + 2 W + HT2000 . Price for export ca. 200+ USD.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 06/07/2020 06:08 pm
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?

Today, for Viasat consumer satellite Internet you can rent or buy the customer premise equipment (CPE).  Rent is $10/mo with 24mo minimum contract, so likely somewhat subsidized by service charges; buy is $300 ("lifetime").  Those use small VSAT terminals (~60cm?) and course that is relatively low bandwidth--IIRC max 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up.

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).

No idea what the actual costs are, or what they were initially, as those would likely have been subsidized through service charges.  But guess today the Viasat consumer CPE cost is in the range of $200-300.

Question is whether Starlink CPE needs to hit that cost-price point?  From a customer perspective, the primary question is likely to be monthly cost for the service (including CPE, whether CPE is rented or purchased) and the service quality-capability.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 06/07/2020 06:11 pm
VSAT - very small aperture terminal.
...
Thanks for that retrospective.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 06/07/2020 06:31 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 06/07/2020 07:03 pm
From working in industries that built consumer and and large scale industrial electronics.

Manufacturing cost was an issue from the time the first breadboard gives proof of concent in the lab until end of life.  It was THE issue from roughly the first batch for beta testing (produced with more or less production equipment) until we got the cost down enough that we are not making a loss on each item.  This phase would typically last a year or two.

The cost of the first few thousand items was very high, but would quickly decrease.  The cost reduction was partly internal and partly external.  We might go from using the most expensive bin of a bleeding edge FPGA to a ho-hum commodity FPGA to ho-hum ASIC over a few years.

We would sell at a loss, initially a big loss, until costs came down.  This had to be considered the cost of developing the market and/or manufacturing process.  If we tried to a gross profit during the first year or so we'd never get off the ground.  The project continues to burn money after launch.  Also note that the book value of serial number 00001 should decreases at least as rapidly as production costs.  Serial numbers 00001-00999 ate money by the bucketful.  Some of us carried arround wet fish to slap any accountants who insisted we keep track of these "valuable assets" for many years instead of writing them off.  There were often campaigns to locate, replace and destroy the early versions after a few years, since they tended to have customer support issues.

Making up some numbers, if the first 10,000 units cost $5,000 each and per unit cost decreases by 20% for every doubling in volumn it could be a profitable venture to sell them for $1000 or $500, but the economics might surprise a lot of people.

One director of engineering gave a lecture every few years.  He praised old products, he showed that only old products made money.  After about 20 minutes the punchline was "The only way to get old products is to develop new products.  Get back to work."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 06/08/2020 02:47 pm
  Boca Chica has at least six of these eggs now. Maybe eight. They keep moving them around.
 And pizzas on poles.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 06/08/2020 03:03 pm
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.

https://twitter.com/trengriffin/status/1269796107195871232
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/08/2020 03:07 pm
And pizzas on poles.

Yes, maybe the user terminals are simply right in front of us.  They look nice.  Much nicer than your garden-variety TV antenna.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 06/08/2020 06:34 pm
"UFO on a stick", right?  Yeah, they seem to fit the bill...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 06/08/2020 11:47 pm
This is the interview by French @01netTV where @jlvuillemin, Executive VP International Network at @orange, briefly mentions that his company is "working with @SpaceX" on #Starlink "and doing tests with them which is fairly fruitful":

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1270134564657278976
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 06/09/2020 02:06 am
 A little different gateway dish view. It's hard to believe I didn't even notice MK1 in that shot so I could have aimed up a little to include it in the photo.
 It's Mary's fault.
 In ten or twenty years those Mesquite trees should look pretty good.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 06/09/2020 02:48 am
5 trillion bytes a day: @SpaceX engineers flash some facts about #Starlink satellites:

https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/1270138057325285379
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: enbandi on 06/09/2020 09:44 pm
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.
....

You know the guy behind Starlink has a car company also, servicing worldwide. And he started with PayPal, so he may have a faint idea about what customer service means.

Also we don't really know what servicing model they choose, and some of the options don't need as many employees on the payroll:

A; They can go online distribution; kit shipment; DIY style. As main target will be rural areas, and first customers can be early (tech) adopters, the DIY part should not have serious negative effect on their sales. Also this version is not unprecedented, see Tesla online store and methods. Repair of broken equipment in the middle of nowhere (if we take that rural thing seriously) should be a replace instead of repair anyway.

B; they can do the distribution through local partners, quite a common technique in cable/telecom/internet service providers. The brand is Starlink, orders are placed through the company, but the actual guy knocking on your door to install your antenna is working for a YXZ-Brothers Ltd or a private contractor. In this case Starlink/SpaceX role is to provide the equipment, trainings for the partners, do the order handling and billing stuff, maybe some call center. Do not need huge staff. Call center is the biggest part, but that can be also provided by the partners, especially for native language support. 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.

Musks Tweets about the user terminals strongly support version A. In this case I think there will be some derived business opportunity: some (independent) companies will offer to do the installation for you.
But as the need local relays, and local Radio permits from the government, I think they may opt for B, especially outside the US (or outside the main countries of interest).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 06/09/2020 10:50 pm
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.



They do indeed. This is how I am getting my Powerwall installed right now, here in rural Georgia.

For Starlink I fully expect them to follow a hybrid of A and B. DIY package sent out to self installers, but anybody who wants an installation done for them has to go through a subcontractor.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: enbandi on 06/09/2020 11:07 pm
.....

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 06/09/2020 11:23 pm
.....

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.

I've brought up the licensing requirements myself as a problem with self installs, but perhaps the fact that the device requires no aiming avoids that issue in the USA.

For anyone not aware, you are required to be a licensed installer for two way satellite dishes, but not for the receive only variety. The logic IIRC is that the beam can be both a public hazard and an interference source for other satellites if mis-aimed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Comga on 06/09/2020 11:57 pm
Cross-posting from the Starlink V1.0 L8 thread because of the great image of the op of the Starlink satellites.
(Also good view of the recovery hardware inside the fairing halves.)
Looks like this will be heaviest F9 payload to date:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1270469107465490432 (https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1270469107465490432)
Quote
I 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)

Edit:  Video here (https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1270466922459459590)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 06/10/2020 04:26 am
After another request by @FCC (https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=2407796) @SpaceX has confirmed its debris analysis (https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=2408681) but @ViasatInc says it is unable to replicate the results, suggests these were rigged by outdated, buggy and proprietary software:

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1270469929393950722
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 06/10/2020 04:27 am
FCC Clears Way for SpaceX to Vie for Rural Broadband Subsidies

https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1270473219909120003
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 06/10/2020 05:03 am
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
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 06/10/2020 06:33 am
This deserves to be front and center.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKWio4zHShM

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 06/10/2020 11:49 am
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):

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kessdawg on 06/10/2020 01:37 pm
Interesting quote at the end of that linked article:
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/10/2020 01:38 pm
Very good news for the whole industry. As he says, now the companies have to put up or shut up.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 06/10/2020 03:29 pm
Interesting quote at the end of that linked article:
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.
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 06/10/2020 04:08 pm
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):

Quote
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.

More background unearthed by Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/h04on0/fcc_just_voted_to_allow_starlink_to_bid_on_low/


SpaceX held a 3 day presentation with hard numbers at the end of May.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/106012288627473/RDOF%20Ex%20Parte%20(6-1-2020)%20(REDACTED).pdf
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10529094752788/SpaceX%20RDOF%20Ex%20Parte%20Confidentiality%20Request%20for%20Exhibit%20A%20(5-29-2020).pdf
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/10/2020 04:10 pm
I'm waiting to see the actual changes to the auction rules.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 06/10/2020 05:07 pm
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
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.
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.
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 06/10/2020 05:38 pm
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
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.
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.
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

Sorry, I missed the speed. Our operator had his own dynamic link margin scheme, so I'm not familiar with cnc.
 The fastest I'm familiar with is iDirect X7 at 60Mbit. They can go for $2500 to $5000 depending on who the boss insists you use.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/11/2020 10:21 pm
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.

Quote
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.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-77A1.pdf
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 06/12/2020 05:17 pm
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.

Quote
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.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-77A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-77A1.pdf)
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.


A degree of skepticism is warranted for any system still in development but it does not have to slip over into the decision process other than a more than usual critical look at the numbers. It does not warrant skepticism of the numbers themselves without good reason. My guess is that current numbers backed by an honest appraisal of rate of change will show a high likelihood of Starlink meeting the latency goals.


It is not directly stated but it looks like SX will not be allowed to compete without an operational system and full coverage established in the rural areas demonstrating sub 100ms latency.


Musk: I see your bet and I raise. How to raise. Get Starlink working. Do not offer services in the regions covered by he rural broadband subsidy until the telecoms have built out infrastructure in that area and are almost ready to light up the fiber. Then do a marketing blitz with offers that will undercut the telecoms and deliver sooner. Let them burn through their subsidy and more for no financial return. Take it on the chin short term for the long term gain. Even handed can only go so far.


An unstated assumption in my thinking is that Starlink will perform as advertised.


Phil



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 06/12/2020 06:12 pm
 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*
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 06/12/2020 06:17 pm
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.

 *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://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceroute

https://www.caida.org/tools/utilities/others/pathchar/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/12/2020 06:51 pm
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.

 *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://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceroute

https://www.caida.org/tools/utilities/others/pathchar/
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.

Then you can compare to other existing services Latency path charting from your location.

Hopefully when Starlink Beta goes online so will software to do path charting to review the two options. Since it would at that time be a "public" (I use this term loosely) ISP.

There may be software out there already though with the Starlink initial setup already included since gateway locations are known.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/12/2020 06:52 pm
https://twitter.com/futurejurvetson/status/1271512092957270016

Quote
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/12/2020 06:54 pm
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*

Many years ago (around '93) I spent some time at a military base in the far East setting up office networks.  Was using a terminal emulator to talk to a system that was only about 500 miles away but due to a routing error the traffic was going through a double geo-sycn satellite hop that took the packets all the way to Alabama and back.  The latency from when you pushed a key and it showed up on the screen was about 7 seconds.  With that as a measure of traditional satellite communications I'm sure Starlink will do quite well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/12/2020 07:47 pm
https://twitter.com/futurejurvetson/status/1271512092957270016

Quote
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!
Question?
Was it the pizza on a stick UT version?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/12/2020 09:17 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1271551236370726918

Quote
You can now sign up for updates to find out when Starlink beta testing is available where you live.
https://www.starlink.com/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 06/12/2020 10:04 pm
It doesnt say one should select any country. I assume this for the US only?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/12/2020 10:13 pm
It doesnt say one should select any country. I assume this for the US only?

Probably
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kang54 on 06/12/2020 10:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cdebuhr on 06/12/2020 10:18 pm
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.

For reference, here it is:
Quote
Thank you for your interest in Starlink!

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.
Edit: include response e-mail.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jarnis on 06/13/2020 06:14 am
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/13/2020 10:23 am
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

Starlink is expected to be offering 100Mbps service (at least with the current generation)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 06/13/2020 10:32 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/13/2020 10:56 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/13/2020 02:26 pm
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.

Quote
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.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-77A1.pdf

I compared the old short-from to the new short-form, besides more details on the Voice Service part, it seems the only change relevant to Starlink are the following highlighted parts:

Quote
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 don't see these as asking anything extraordinary, it's basically asking them to prove - on paper - that they can do what they promised to do, which should already be covered by the design specs of Starlink itself. Now that they have hardware and test results, it would only make answering these questions easier.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 06/13/2020 02:32 pm
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 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.
 Mesh systems have never really lived up to their promise, and making one work with satellites, users and ground stations all moving around would be fun.
 Then again, I remember core memory, so I might be a little out of date.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: allins on 06/13/2020 03:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mto on 06/13/2020 03:40 pm
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): ...

Worked for me, Thanks
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/13/2020 04:35 pm
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.

I would strongly encourage people who aren't Canadian to not fill out that form.  There are already 1000 comments on that filing.  The weird part is, I don't see how to get any information about the filing on that web site.  It's just "There was something filed about Starlink, we're not going to tell you what, comment here."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/13/2020 05:03 pm
I wonder whether this is the most "interventions" that Canada has ever received for an application (edit: not quite).  This is even without "astroturfing" on SpaceX's part.

Yes, demand probably won't be an issue for a while... :)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: allins on 06/13/2020 10:07 pm
I now see that it was already mentioned in the Starlink: Regulatory Filings in Other Countries forum:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51012.0

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/14/2020 04:13 pm
twitter.com/outdoorswarrior/status/1272186518300319744

Quote
Where is starlink 1 2 5 and 6? Are they okay?

https://twitter.com/futurejurvetson/status/1272191499942236162

Quote
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 ;-)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/15/2020 12:21 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1272503065451679744

Quote
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/15/2020 01:35 pm
Musk reiterates ~20ms latency on this version, as low as 8ms on the VLEO birds.  Now to demonstrate this to the FCC's satisfaction before mid-July.

Quote from: Musk on Twitter
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.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1272363466288820224
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/15/2020 04:15 pm
A few tidbits from a review of the SpaceX jobs board.

*SpaceX is hiring a global regulatory head.
*User terminal manufacturing is hiring a second shift in Hawthorne.
*It appears that at least one support call center will be in Redmond.  Just started hiring customer support representatives.
*Lots of laser communications engineer and technician positions continue to being added in Hawthorne and Redmond.
*Continued heavy investment in chip engineers (RFIC/ASIC/FPGA) in Irvine and Redmond.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: salpun on 06/16/2020 04:42 pm
Last launch was released at a different time and has not started raising their orbits yet.  Confidence in the propulsion must be very high as they are already falling out of the sky.   

SpaceX must have figured out a faster way to get them in position, will be interesting to watch over the next few weeks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: haywoodfloyd on 07/14/2020 12:09 pm
I just received an  e-mail from Starlink (yes Starlink not SpaceX) requesting my actual street address for possible participation in their Private Beta.
They are still waiting for approval from the CRTC.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JohnLloydJones on 07/14/2020 12:38 pm
I just received an  e-mail from Starlink (yes Starlink not SpaceX) requesting my actual street address for possible participation in their Private Beta.
They are still waiting for approval from the CRTC.
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?

[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]
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: haywoodfloyd on 07/14/2020 12:50 pm
I think the private beta will be used partially to test out their system at  various latitudes so you may well be included.
There will, no doubt, be restrictions placed on the program both by Starlink and the government regulators.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guyw on 07/14/2020 02:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 07/14/2020 03:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/14/2020 03:59 pm
I also got the e-mail.  I'm located in California, in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RJU65 on 07/14/2020 05:29 pm
I Wondered if everyone is getting emails. I got an email and I live in Hampshire UK
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: MarkW on 07/14/2020 05:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/14/2020 06:04 pm
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 got it too.  I agree it's probably a next step.  I'm waiting to hear the leak on how many people are signing up.  That will generate some free media (which Elon loves).

The 1 million limit from the FCC shouldn't be too hard to fill. 

Also want to see when Canada approves a license, then I'll get my family signed up.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: philw1776 on 07/14/2020 06:50 pm
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.

Darn! Living in seacoast NH under the thumb of Comcast, I was hoping I'd be THE master beta guy for NH.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 07/14/2020 07:32 pm
Yep. Way down in Georgia here. Probably won't see any service till mid 2021 the way it's going.

But I updated my address anyway. Surprise me Elon!

 ;D
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: duh on 07/14/2020 07:45 pm
I just received an  e-mail from Starlink (yes Starlink not SpaceX) requesting my actual street address for possible participation in their Private Beta.
They are still waiting for approval from the CRTC.
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?

[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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/14/2020 08:08 pm
I just received an  e-mail from Starlink (yes Starlink not SpaceX) requesting my actual street address for possible participation in their Private Beta.
They are still waiting for approval from the CRTC.
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?

[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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guyw on 07/14/2020 08:40 pm

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.

I was the one that mentioned trying to login. I would have been pleasantly shocked if I had actually been able to login. I just noticed that a login link was there and tried it. As I said, in the process so far I have not been offered the opportunity to create an account. I tried it on the off chance that I might get logged in and discover something new.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: duh on 07/14/2020 09:25 pm
Also strange (at least to me), on this forum the thread subject line changet at message #1667 from

         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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: salpun on 07/14/2020 09:28 pm
Also strange (at least to me), on this forum the thread subject line changet at message #1667 from

         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.
That happens when another threads posts gets added to the end of an open thread.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/14/2020 10:51 pm
Got nothing here in Kansas. It's a flyover state which is generally a good thing. Keeps the tourists out. But I don't want Starlink to just fly over. I wanna swap some RF.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/14/2020 10:52 pm
Nothing showing up in Kansas.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 07/14/2020 11:58 pm
Nothing showing up in Kansas.

They put a gateway in Kansas
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/15/2020 11:14 am
Starlink Beta FAQ and Beta Tester Customer Agreement / Terms of Service, dug up by reddit (https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/hr4904/starlink_beta_faq_antenna_images/):

FAQ

q: What is Starlink Beta?

a:Starlink Beta is an opportunity to be an early user of the SpaceX's satellite internet system.The purpose of Starlink Beta is to gather feedback that will help us make decisions on how best to implement the system for Starlink's official launch. By design, the beta experience will be imperfect. Our goal is to incorporate feedback from a variety of users to ensure we build the best satellite broadband internet system possible.

q:Who can participate in Starlink Beta?

a:Starlink Beta will begin in the Northern United States and lower Canada, with those living in rural and/or remote communities in the Washington state area. Access to the Starlink Beta program will be driven by the user's location as well as the number of users in nearby areas. All beta testers must have a clear view of the northern sky to participate.

q:Why do I need a clear view of the northern sky to be a beta tester?

a:The Starlink system is currently made up of nearly 600 satellites orbiting the Earth that can provide internet service in a very specific range-between 44 and 52 degrees north latitude. Your Starlink dish requires a clear view of the Northern sky in order to communicate with the Starlink satellites. Without the clear view, the Starlink dish cannot make a good connection and your service will be extremely poor.

q:Can I document and share my Starlink Beta experience?

a:No, unfortunately you cannot document or share your Starlink Beta experience publicly. Beta testers will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement as a condition of their participation.

q:How will my service quality be during Starlink Beta?

a:During Starlink Beta, service will be intermittent as teams work to optimize the network. When connected, your service quality will be high, but your connection will not be consistent. This means it may support streaming video with some buffering, but likely is not suitable for gaming or work purposes.

q:What is expected of me as a participant in Starlink Beta?

a:Beta testers will provide feedback in the form of periodic short surveys over an 8 week period to help our teams improve every aspect of the service.

q:Is there a cost to participating Starlink Beta?

a:There is no cost to be a beta tester, aside from a $1 charge to help test the billing system.

q:What will I receive as a Beta Tester?

a:Your Starlink Kit will arrive via FedEx pre-assembled with a Starlink dish, router [see FCC approval], power supply and mount depending on your dwelling type. Your Starlink Kit will require a signature for delivery, but you will be able to manage your delivery date and time through FedEx.

q:How does Starlink internet work?

a:Starlink will deliver high-speed broadband internet across the globe with a large, low-Earth constellation of relatively small but advanced satellites. Satellite internet works by sending information through the vacuum of space, where it travels nearly 50% faster than in fiber-optic cable.

q:Most satellite internet services today come from single geostationary satellites that orbit the planet at about 35,000km, covering a fixed region of the Earth. Starlink, on the other hand, is a constellation of multiple satellites that orbit the planet much lower at about 550km, and cover the entire globe.

a:Because the satellites are in a low orbit, the round-trip data time between the user and the satellite - also known as latency - is much lower than with satellites in geostationary orbit. This enables Starlink to deliver services like online gaming that are usually not possible on other satellite broadband systems

q:If I sign up to be a Beta Tester and I change my mind, can I cancel?

a:Yes, you can cancel at any time.



Beta Tester Customer Agreement / Terms of Service:

Thank you for volunteering to participate in SpaceX’s Starlink Beta Program (“Beta Program”). Below you will find important rules for your participation. SpaceX will provide you with a “Starlink Kit” (the Starlink dish, wifi router, power supply and mounts) and internet services. By accepting Starlink internet services and the Starlink Kit (“Starlink Services”), you agree to be bound by and comply with these terms and conditions under the Beta Program.

Confidentiality and No Social Media

You are being provided early access to the Starlink Services. The Starlink Services and details like internet speeds, uptime, coverage, and other performance specifications are confidential and proprietary to SpaceX. You may NOT discuss your participation in the Beta Program online or with those outside of your household, unless they are SpaceX employees.

You must not share anything on social media about the Starlink Services or the Beta Program. This applies not only to public forums, but also to private accounts and restricted groups. Do not provide access or information about Starlink Services to the media or allow third-parties to take pictures of any part of the Starlink Kit.

Your Responsibility as a Beta Tester

You agree to dedicate an average of 30 minutes to 1 hour per day testing the Starlink Services and providing feedback on a periodic basis. Feedback requests from SpaceX will come in the form of surveys, phone calls, emails, and other means. Not participating can result in termination of your Beta Program participation and you must return your Starlink Kit.

Nominal Fee to Test Online Ordering Process

As part of the Beta Program’s online ordering process, SpaceX will ask you to input your credit or debit card information and your card will be charged a small amount in order to test SpaceX’s ordering and billing systems. For example, at the initial sign-up you will be charged approximately $3.00 total and thereafter, a reoccurring charge of approximately $2.00 per month during the duration of the Beta Program.

This nominal charge is NOT a fee for the Starlink Kit or internet services, but is exclusively being requested to allow SpaceX to test its ordering and billing systems. SpaceX is temporarily loaning you the Starlink Kit and providing the internet services free of charge.

If you do not want to provide your credit or debit card information, please do not participate in the Beta Program.

Starlink Kit

The Starlink Kit has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission and may not be offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained. The Starlink Kit is being provided to you for the purposes of evaluating performance and determining customer acceptability during the Kit’s pre-production state.

Title to, and ownership of the equipment in the Starlink Kit remains with SpaceX. You may not loan, transfer, sell, give away, tamper with, or alter the Starlink Kit unless you obtain approval from SpaceX. Software copies installed on the Starlink Kit are made available for use as installed and never sold. SpaceX reserves all rights and interests to Starlink Services and its intellectual property provided to you.

If any equipment in the Starlink Kit is stolen, damaged, or compromised, please report it promptly to Customer Support by signing into your Starlink Account.

Installation

You are responsible for installing the Starlink Kit. Do not allow third-parties, or those not associated with SpaceX, to access or install the Starlink Kit unless you obtain approval form SpaceX. Do not install the Starlink Kit at your home if you do not have the authority to do so. It is your responsibility to ensure compliance with all applicable zoning, ordinances, covenants, conditions, restrictions, lease obligations and landlord/owner approvals related to the installation location. For example, if your apartment building or condo prohibits installs on its roof, or in common spaces, or only allows installs on private balconies, or does not allow penetrative installs (drilling holes through a roof or walls), you are responsible for understanding and following such rules. If you cannot install the Starlink Kit without breaking the rules, do not install it.

Use good judgment in installing the Starlink Services, and do not take unnecessary risks. If you cannot safely install the Starlink Kit, do not install it.

Except as arises from intentional misconduct or gross negligence, SpaceX shall not have any liability for any losses resulting from the Starlink Services, Starlink Kit or any installation, repair, or other associated services including, without limitation, damage to your property, or loss of software, data, or other information from your devices. Should use of the Starlink Services require any construction or alteration to your property, SpaceX is not obliged to restore your property to the same physical state as prior to delivery of Services. If you require a roof mount installation, you acknowledge the potential risks associated with this type of installation, including, without limitation, with respect to any warranty that applies to your roof or roof membrane.

Privacy

Please review SpaceX’s Privacy Policy to understand how we treat personal information we collect from you. In addition to the information listed in our Privacy Policy, we will be collecting information through our survey questions, and certain data for the purpose of measuring performance, including the following:

* A record of time when the dish is active and transmitting
* Amount of data the dish uses per moment of time
* Equipment link performance and network health
* Equipment unit telemetry
* Dish GPS orientation and obstruction telemetry

Usage and Network Monitoring

Do not conduct any illegal activities using the Starlink Services. This includes, downloading or storing any material that infringes on the intellectual property or copyrights of third-parties, such as downloading movies or music without paying for it. SpaceX may suspend or terminate your participation in the Beta Program if we believe you are participating in illegal behavior using Starlink Services. SpaceX may also suspend or terminate your participation in order to protect the network from security threats or to minimize congestion caused by the excessive use.

Termination of Beta Program and Starlink Kit Returns

At the end of Beta Program, or whenever SpaceX determines, your participation in the Beta Program will be terminated, Starlink Services will be shut off and you will be required to return the Starlink Kit to SpaceX, at SpaceX’s shipping cost, following return instructions that will be provided to you.

To terminate your participation in the Beta Program at any time, please contact Customer Support by signing into your Starlink Account. SpaceX will provide you with instructions for returning the Starlink Kit, at SpaceX’s cost.

Failure to return the Starlink Kit within 30 days of Beta Program termination or within 30 days from SpaceX’s request for any reason, may result in your credit or debit card on file being charged an equipment fee.



Billing

Starlink hardware or services, but are being requested exclusively to allow for the testing of our ordering and billing systems as part of this beta program. SpaceX is temporarily loaning you the hardware and providing the internet services free of charge. The $1 will be charged 30 days after your hardware is shipped. This invitation is not transferable to any other address. By clicking the above link you are activating Starlink Services and authorize regularly scheduled charges to the payment method on file. These charges are not a fee for the Starlink hardware or services, but are being requested exclusively to allow for the testing of our ordering and billing systems as part of this beta program. SpaceX is temporarily loaning you the hardware and providing the internet services free of charge. The $1 will be charged 30 days after your hardware is shipped. This invitation is not transferable to any other address. By clicking the above link you are activating Starlink Services and authorize regularly scheduled charges to the payment method on file.



Mounting Options:

Ridgeline Mount [EZ-PNP-A-KIT]

The Ridgeline mount should take between 20-40 minutes to install, and it will require the ability to carry approximately 50 lbs of ballast to the mount location.

Lawn Mount [EZ-PNP-NTA-KIT]

The Lawn mount should take between 5-10 minutes to install, and it will require the ability to carry approximately 50 lbs of ballast to the mount location

Volcano Mount

The Volcano mount should take between 90-180 minutes to install, and will require the knowledge and ability to secure directly to the edge of your roof.

No Mount

No mount is necessary for your location.

references to this existing roof mount NPR8R1-05
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/15/2020 02:08 pm
Quote
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.

https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starlink-wesbite-user-terminal-satellite-dish-pictures-beta-test-2020-7

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/16/2020 01:15 pm
Got the email to input my Kansas address this morning.


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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 07/16/2020 02:31 pm
Got the email to input my Kansas address this morning.

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
You can't assume Beta testers react like normal people.

 Hard to tell with the roofing. The signal strength might be about the same, but the materials could fuzz it up some and take down the SNR. Ku band is hard to figure sometimes. The nails alone would probably cause signal unpleasantness.
 Making a good Radome can take a few tries even with the guys who know what they're doing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JohnLloydJones on 07/16/2020 02:46 pm
Got the email to input my Kansas address this morning.

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
You can't assume Beta testers react like normal people.

<snip>

I'm sure that some who have expressed interest to become a Beta tester have no idea what they are asking for; whereas others have been down the road of working with flaky hardware / software before. In other words a motley collection, but yes not like normal folks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: matthewkantar on 07/16/2020 03:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: hopalong on 07/16/2020 03:59 pm
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.

I am at 52 north (Ok, 51.996 according to Google maps) in the UK.
I have good speeds, 70Mb/s with fibre available (800-900Mb/s). I have no need of Starlink, but I believe in the project and Elons long term goals so I am happy to act as a beta tester. Now my inlaws at 51N would benefit as their ASDL speeds suck... sub 1Mb/s on a good day...   
They are the sort of customer which Starlink is built for - very slow or no service in a semi-rural or rural area.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: haywoodfloyd on 07/20/2020 12:07 pm
What's the deal about "50 pounds of ballast" for a couple of the mounts?
I'm no weakling but...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: matthewkantar on 07/20/2020 12:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 07/20/2020 01:52 pm
What's the deal about "50 pounds of ballast" for a couple of the mounts?
I'm no weakling but...

Think it is like the rectangular or round slabs with a slot for holding down temporary traffic signs.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ShSch on 07/20/2020 07:15 pm
What's the deal about "50 pounds of ballast" for a couple of the mounts?
I'm no weakling but...
I believe this is what we are seeing in pictures like this one.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: _MECO on 07/20/2020 08:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 07/20/2020 10:04 pm
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.

Well, the antennas use Power-over-Ethernet (PoE). 

The highest power standard is IEEE 802.3bt type 4.  This specifies that the power supply be capable of providing up to 100W at the ethernet cable input.  After allowing for cable losses over 100 metres of cable the powered device (antenna) should not demand more than 71W input power.  However, if the cable is much shorter/lower resistance, then the antenna could negotiate that up to 90W max ("Extended Power").

This is the maximum that the antenna could use if it is compliant with IEEE standards - of course it could be less.

There are proprietary PoE implementations but these are usually no more than the IEEE standards.

Happy camping  :)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 07/20/2020 10:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/21/2020 01:09 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 07/21/2020 01:11 am
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.

https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1285233279948521472
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 07/21/2020 01:12 am
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 07/21/2020 01:12 am
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).

https://twitter.com/CHenry_SN/status/1285294301153558529
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/21/2020 01:26 am
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).

https://twitter.com/CHenry_SN/status/1285294301153558529
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.)

(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!)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/21/2020 01:27 am
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.

https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1285233279948521472
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/21/2020 01:49 am
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 seems less well-informed than the average poster on NSF.

Giving OneWeb credit for a better funding situation than SpaceX is completely delusional, as is showing SpaceX technology as only halfway there.

This Morgan Stanley report was either written by someone who was entirely incompetent or someone who was purposely lying to help the financial interests of some party.  Or some of each.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/21/2020 02:24 am
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).

https://twitter.com/CHenry_SN/status/1285294301153558529
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.)

(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!)

Since the future value of a Gbps-month is far lower than the present value, these are useless units for a value comparison even if all the assumptions are correct.

Also, the assumption that SpaceX will be averaging a cost of $100M per 60 satellites launched over 200 launches is absurd. They are probably under $50M per 60 satellites launched already, and trending toward $25M in the long run with Falcon, and could go as low as $10M per 60 satellites with Starship.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 07/21/2020 02:40 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/21/2020 03:58 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 07/21/2020 04:22 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/21/2020 04:43 am
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.
I agree. I was being generous.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 07/21/2020 03:27 pm
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.

https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1285233279948521472
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/22/2020 04:43 pm
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.

https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1285233279948521472 (https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1285233279948521472)
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.
Even garbage is informative in its own way.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Hummy on 07/24/2020 03:58 pm
1. Starlink friends and family trials are underway according to Jonathan Hofeller, SpaceX’s vice president of Starlink and Commercial Sales.

2. “As soon as we can get inter-satellite links, I know that is something that we want to do,” Hofeller said. “We have to make sure it’s cost effective in order to provide it and implement into the constellation. That’s something we are attacking internally and aggressively and it’s something that we know will greatly enhance the system, both for consumers and enterprise customers, and our government customers as well.”

More in "8 Takeaways From Our SpaceX, Telesat LEO Constellation Webcast" (https://www.satellitetoday.com/broadband/2020/07/23/8-takeaways-from-our-spacex-telsat-leo-constellation-webcast/)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tulse on 07/24/2020 04:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/24/2020 04:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/24/2020 05:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: savantu on 07/24/2020 07:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 07/25/2020 02:01 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/25/2020 02:51 am
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?


Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: savantu on 07/26/2020 04:10 am
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?


Phil

It's just what I read in the news and discussion around it at the time -> part info, part speculation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-starlink-insight/musk-shakes-up-spacex-in-race-to-make-satellite-launch-window-sources-idUSKCN1N50FC

Edit/Lar: Fix quotes. Preview button, people! :)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 07/27/2020 04:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 07/27/2020 04:32 pm
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.
People are allowed to think without it being pure guesswork. Some actually have reasons for what they believe.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/27/2020 05:05 pm
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.
People are allowed to think without it being pure guesswork. Some actually have reasons for what they believe.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/27/2020 09:20 pm
Interlink timelines

Possible scenarios:

1- Awaiting launch of V2.0 sats on Starship. This could be sooner than most think. With likely NET 2Q 2021 and NLT 1Q 2022. You do not need a lot of launches. At 240 sats per launch to launch 6 Starships to replace 24 F9 launches and at 300 sats per launch to Launch just 5 Starship in a year. Less than 1 every 2 months which is currently slower than the SS build rate in Boca Chica of 1 a month. So even if recovery and reuse is not reliable the launch rate can be easily met in a simi developmental period where development of recovery of SH and SS is being improved and brought to operational reliable levels (at least 5 flights per vehicle).

2- Awaiting the current Beta Test results to see how significant having interconnects would be for general data traffic and its impacts of cost of operations and marginal capital costs for including on the sats. This one has a implement/ no implement decision point somewhere around 1Q 2021 with implementing on a sats about 3 to 6 months later or about 3Q 2021.

3. If implemented (Beta Test results decision positive) but not until V2.0 sats launched on Starship. Timeline dates same as case #1 but has the implement/ no implement decision prior to Starship operational dates.




The cost factor may be more associated with the added mass to the sat for these interconnects which includes more packet storage and switch equipment on each sat as well to handle to increase in traffic transferring through the sat. Mass has a tremendous cost. More mass less sats per launch. A 50 kg total mass increase is a $70K cost increase for launch cost per sat when launching on F9. When launching on Starship with Starship meeting only minimal reuse goals the launch cost impact for increased mass becomes close to just $10K per sat.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 07/27/2020 09:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/28/2020 02:05 am
At ~$300K for manufacturing cost of the sat + $400K for the cost of launch of a 300kg sat at about $1,300/kg. It does not take much to put the economic question of is it worth it beyond reach. If a 10% increase in cost per sat to manufacture and deploy does not improve the throughput capability of the constellation (number of subscribers a set number of sats will support) by >10% then there is a very big question if such an addition is worth it. A 10% cost increase per sat is $70K. That includes not only the manufacturing costs but additional costs for increased mass in launch. Such intersat links could be either a set of 2 or set of 4 links. Initially use of just 2 links, fore and aft in the relationship to the direction of orbit, would show some usefulness in expanding the area that the sats can support such as across oceans and other countries without Gateways installed.

Costing example where a 2 link would have a $50K cost but a greater than 10% increase in revenue. But a 4 link would have a $100K cost but have just a small advantage in revenue vs the 2 link.

It is working out the costs and potential revenue increase that may be not with a firm enough resolve to make a decision. Plus anything that would simultaneously lower manufacturing cost and mass could also tip the scale in favor of implementing sooner rather than later. If it remains marginal then implementation may be delayed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/28/2020 02:19 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Confusador on 07/28/2020 01:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/28/2020 01:10 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Confusador on 07/28/2020 01:15 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/28/2020 01:19 pm
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.

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.

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.

There are a few fan (or hater) theories about Starlink that are really silly. The biggest is that they’ll get enormous revenue from high frequency trading telecoms (the market for those services is less than $1 billion, and things like shortwave radio have lower latency). The next one, a bit less ridiculous but still a little silly is that “the REAL customer for Starlink is the US military.” Yes, Starlink is great for the military, but the actual amount of revenue that provides is minscule. Consumers and businesses provide literally orders of magnitude greater revenue possibility, and THAT possibility is why SpaceX is able to raise money even at a $44B valuation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: intelati on 07/28/2020 01:28 pm
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.

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.

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/28/2020 01:36 pm
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.

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.

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
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/28/2020 01:38 pm
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.

I’d still expect to see some test satellites included in one or more of the launches.  Perhaps they have done this and not said anything.  But typically they do let the public know the outlines of what they are doing.

Cost, size and weight are important but maybe they haven’t gotten the tech to work yet.   It’s a very difficult problem.

However, it’s critical to having a global footprint and coverage over oceans. 

I’m not worried about it at this point, it will come along in some future version.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/28/2020 01:42 pm
Starlink has been more under-wraps than most SpaceX activities.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/28/2020 02:39 pm
Starlink has been more under-wraps than most SpaceX activities.

LOL, I appreciate the tease. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/28/2020 09:56 pm
Initial operational state milestone has been stated as being having 1400 operational sats. Current is ~540 to 600 depending on how you count the V0.9 sats and all those that have been deactivated it could be a few less than 540. In order to get to 1400 at 2 launches a month average will take ~8 months or somewhere around April 2021. So delaying ILS until later such as beginning of 2021 when Beta test is finishing up and has collected significant amounts of data is not that unrealistic. Meaning waiting 6 more months before testing first ILS V0.9 implementation on a batch of 60 that comprises completely a couple of close neighboring rings is a likely case. This is likely to include as many as 4 launches of this ILS V0.9 version while working on an upgraded better performing version. Followed in a couple of months with possible upgraded ILS V1.0 and thereafter a lot more of that version until something better is designed with less cost and more capability.

Such that by Mid 2021 there could be as many as 700 ILS capable sats in a sat constellation of 1700 sats. By EOY that would be 1400 ILS capable sats in a constellation of 2400 sats. Global sat link comm would be available 24/7 with capability to connect direct back to a US Gateway from anywhere in the world.

NOTE the US DOD communication evaluation study ends in 2022.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 07/29/2020 07:47 am
ILS is only needed for services in the seas and oceans. On land, most countries still require gateways to control traffic by local police. The question is what is the assessment of the telecom market of sea and air transportation (IFC - In Flight Communication).

//The global maritime satellite communication market size is expected to grow from USD 2.3 billion in 2020 to USD 3.2 billion by 2025, at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 7.1% during the forecast period. Escalating need for enriched data communication to improve operation efficiency, on-board security and surveillance, and employee/passenger welfare in the maritime industry is driving the market. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/maritime-satellite-communication-market-113822978.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/29/2020 04:39 pm
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.


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.


As the number of ISL sats increases, the cross link bandwidth demands on any one sat decreases and end user connections become feasible.


An exception to the early ISL sats not doing end user service would be over water where end user bandwidth will not be great while that market is developing. Another exception might be to edge end user service a bit further south (in the northern hemisphere).


A new service area, Europe for example, would still need a ground station(s) early in the transition but as the number of ISL sats increases a ground station for a new service area would not be needed unless local regulatory requirements demand it. Likewise, preexisting ground stations would need to stick around only as long as non ISL bandwidth, cable head needs and hitting FCC milestones dictate.


Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/04/2020 06:27 pm
On July 29 and 30, SpaceX had conference calls with Commissioner Carr and folks at the FCC International Bureau.  SpaceX's ex-parte notice of the calls contains some interesting information (see Slide 3).

*SpaceX has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to date
*Manufacturing satellites at a rate of 120 per month
*Invested over $70 million developing and producing thousands of user terminals
*Currently manufacturing user terminals at rate of thousands per month
*High-rate manufacturing of user terminals soon
*Beta service started with hundreds of testers
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mdee on 08/05/2020 10:15 pm
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.

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.

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
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 totally agree with you, initially the first customer must be the army!.

If we look at the majority of past technologies, the army first tested it before it was released to the public.

Let's see if the new generation of starlink will not affect the vision of astronomers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/05/2020 10:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/05/2020 10:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Krossbolt on 08/06/2020 11:32 pm
Starlink got some bad press from the Australian Broadcasting Commission today in their online news -

Why Elon Musk's satellite swarm is an accident waiting to happen

Smaller, cheaper satellites are flooding the most popular orbit, increasing the likelihood of an accident that could trigger a catastrophe in space and calamity back on Earth.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-07/spacex-amazon-satellites-scramble-for-space-around-earth/12512978?nw=0

I'm pretty annoyed at the author's one sided write up and using obviously an astronomer's viewpoint who obviously is not sympathetic to Starlink. The article is not balanced in that there is no mention of the satellites' anti collision systems and deorbit capabilities. I've sent a complaint to the ABC Online editor.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/07/2020 10:38 am
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.


The military tech itself usually isn't what we use but is more of an enabler.


I'm not sure an inventory of 'stuff' looking for military bits has ever been rigorously done. The results would be interesting.


Phil
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/07/2020 10:58 am
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.

There is even more tech that was developed by the private sector for the private sector. such as the printing press with moveable type, the steam engine, railroads, automobiles, the telegraph, the incandescent light bulb, the telephone, television, the transistor, the laser, the microprocessor, and millions of other innovations that pervade our world today.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/08/2020 06:01 am
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1291863550504443905

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 08/08/2020 05:28 pm
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.

Not to go too far off topic, but I think DARPA knows this and that's why they structure some of their stuff the way they do... prizes and incentives for inventors and scrappy entepreneurial companies to give it a go.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/10/2020 05:47 am
https://twitter.com/cosmos4u/status/1292661826866610177

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 08/10/2020 06:58 pm
https://twitter.com/cosmos4u/status/1292661826866610177

Quote
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.

Let's hope some more measurements come out soon - promising, but still a very preliminary observation. Another experienced observer (in that satobs thread) posted another observation set on the same day saying he could see it, but I'm not experienced enough to interpret the data beyond knowing it was visible by a telescope setup:
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2020/0066.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2020/0065.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 08/10/2020 07:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 08/10/2020 11:24 pm
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.

I'm no expert in this area, but I went through the satobs guide to their standard measurement set. http://www.satobs.org/position/IODformat.html. There simply isn't magnitude data in these sets - I think it's a measure of whether or not someone with a good telescope could spot all of these objects, and where in the sky they could be spotted. The only visual data available was that visorsat was visible. You could, potentially, guess what the visibility threshold for that particular observer's setup may have been based on other spotted or not spotted objects, especially given that it seems that night was particularly clear on one dataset (intermittent cloud cover I'd imagine could give misleading measurements).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/19/2020 04:28 pm
Visorsat observed at magnitude 7.0.

Crossposted from the megaconstellation impacts thread...

https://twitter.com/richard_e_cole/status/1295604802966171649
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aero on 08/21/2020 02:53 pm
Quote
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

https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-sats (https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-sats)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 08/21/2020 03:43 pm
Quote
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

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aero on 08/21/2020 04:27 pm
Quote
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

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.

Well, it's more than 700!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/21/2020 04:32 pm
Quote
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

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.

Well, it's more than 700!
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.

This next launch L11 will bring the total to 700+.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/21/2020 04:37 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 08/21/2020 04:39 pm
Quote
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

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.
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.
Conclusion it is almost 800 in 4 ways, so why beat about the bush?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/21/2020 04:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 08/21/2020 04:51 pm
Having worked in a bistro for a while, I think I see where the math went wrong. 24 x 60 = "about 1500" (from Ars web article). So 12 launches is "about 1500"/2, which equals "about 750", or "almost 800".

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: matthewkantar on 08/21/2020 07:28 pm
Let's not quibble over a couple of hundred satellites, will be a rounding error in no time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/21/2020 09:05 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aero on 08/21/2020 09:22 pm
All this discussion about how many is 800 is interesting, but I thought the more interesting part was:

Quote
Company 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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 08/21/2020 11:45 pm
All this discussion about how many is 800 is interesting, but I thought the more interesting part was:

Quote
Company 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?
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.

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aero on 08/22/2020 12:20 am
All this discussion about how many is 800 is interesting, but I thought the more interesting part was:

Quote
Company 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?
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.

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

Oh good answer! That means they will soon be generating revenue with the 3, 2, 1 plane countdown on the way to 22.

Seriously, to me, "service will be offered" implies that there will be a charge. Does anyone agree with that or will the service be free? And if there is a charge, then Starlink should start generating revenue in a month or so. For some reason, I have always thought of Starlink as a service available sometime in the future, not in just a few days.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/22/2020 12:39 am
Starlink will not be offering paid service in a month.  They're early in beta testing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/22/2020 02:26 am
There have been slightly varying numbers given for deployment milestones over the years, and I think some of them need some additional detail to understand what it really meant. 

For coverage over the northern US/southern Canada, evenly spacing the satellites from 6 launches over 18 planes would give initial coverage.  The way the deployment unfolded, to speed things up a little they didn't spread the satellites evenly from some launches and are using more than 6 launches to get those 18 planes, but that is close to happening now.

With 12 fully deployed launches they should get coverage of most of the US.  Fully deploying the satellites after launch can be 3-4 months.

Gwynne tossed out a number of 14 launches earlier this year before they would start promoting the service.  I'm not entirely sure if that meant 1) after 14 launches, at about two a month, the satellites from the first 6-8 launches would be in their final planes and able to serve the northern US when that 14th launch happened or 2) after 14 launches are fully deployed they can start promoting it to most of the US.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/22/2020 04:00 pm
All this discussion about how many is 800 is interesting, but I thought the more interesting part was:

Quote
Company 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?
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.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 08/22/2020 04:23 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/22/2020 05:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 08/22/2020 05:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 08/22/2020 06:45 pm
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  ..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/22/2020 08:46 pm
From tracking data graphs it takes from 2 to 3 months for sats to reach operating positions. Also at current historical launch rate of 10 launches in 8 months. It will take another 10 months to launch the remainder of the 1400 sats for the "SpaceX Global" + 3 more to get the last on station for 13 months. This is Sept 2021. Also to get to the "800" operational sats for minimal operations do not expect that to start for at least 5 more months because to launch 3-4 more times (L-11-L14). Then the maneuvers to get to operational positions +3 months. Will give the 800 needed for such initial limited operations. Jan 2021.

Going paid services operational (limited service area) on 1 Jan 2021 is still soon. Followed 9 months later with a much larger service area - the above 60 degree latitude. So there is time for the FCC approval for lower altitude high inclination orbits before their launches start toward the Q4 2021.Itt should not take long for service to higher latitudes to be turned on. But still a technical problem in the mix for higher latitudes and over oceans is the inter sat links. SpaceX may continue to wait for such interlink sats before populating the higher inclination orbits. A V1.1 sat. Or if Starship is available the possibly bigger V2.0 sats.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 08/22/2020 09:40 pm
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  ..
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.

As I indicated briefly in my post to aero above, filling in missing satellites in planes as they pass by could start happening within the next few launches, and certainly could take place while filling in the rest of the in between planes, this is no extra cost from an orbital mechanics perspective than what they have already been doing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aero on 08/22/2020 11:10 pm
So if SpaceX was so inclined, they could take a page from the early Microsoft Windows playbook and start selling services today. "Order now and when your terminal arrives full operation will exist from the available constellation!" "Oh, sorry, some of the satellites are drifting but will be in the desired orbits soon." "Have you tried re-booting your terminal?" "Let me pull up your contract ... I see here that you only bought the terminal, you need to subscribe to the service in order to acquire the signal." "Well, there is a backlog of subscribers, do you want to use the credit card we have on file? We expect that we will be able to switch on your subscription service soon." ... and so forth and so on ad infinitum.

Needless to say, my experience with Windows 3.1 just wasn't that great.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 08/22/2020 11:32 pm
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.
can you elaborate your statement  which I've highlighted. I find it rather specific one.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/23/2020 02:27 am
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.
can you elaborate your statement  which I've highlighted. I find it rather specific one.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/23/2020 02:57 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 08/23/2020 03:32 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/23/2020 04:23 pm
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 08/23/2020 05:05 pm
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.

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.
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.
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'd expect SpaceX to actually be in favor of tightening regulations. The current ones are relatively loose, and if SpaceX doesn't significantly exceed them, they would cause themselves significant problems by having their derelict satellites interfere with their own constellation. It is only to their benefit if others are forced to make improvements as well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 08/23/2020 05:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 08/23/2020 06:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 08/23/2020 06:20 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 08/23/2020 11:39 pm
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?
Good question, I hadn't thought much about making that assumption.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 08/23/2020 11:47 pm
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?
Good question, I hadn't thought much about making that assumption.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2020 05:42 am
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.

I wasn't talking before about tracking problems, since tracking these satellites should not be an issue. Instead I was referencing problems such as a malfunctioning satellite autonomously taking actions that make it stay up longer when it would normally naturally decay in an acceptable timeframe.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 08/24/2020 02:06 pm
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.

That number includes satellites with "degraded maneuverability", not just those which lost maneuverability entirely. And lost maneuverability isn't quite the same as dead, since they still may be able to change attitude to minimize collision risk or increase drag.

Still, SpaceX is highly unlikely to use injections above 500 km IMO. Besides the debris issues, they re already pushing the performance limits of Falcon. It's more efficient to let the satellites raise themselves.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/24/2020 03:40 pm
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?
Good question, I hadn't thought much about making that assumption.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2020 04:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 08/24/2020 06:48 pm
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.
You assume (why?) that SpaceX would use the same technique for other orbit arrangement.
Let look to their design:
1)they claim 200k per sat. It's extremely (excessively) cheap. The only way they can arrange this is by reducing (very greatly) integration testing, accepting higher quality tolerances and using not "properly" (in JPL terms) tested electronic suits.
It's quite obvious (see Falcon hardware) they are capable to do all this, it will just push costs high and delay things greatly (see universal doubts of the old space about Starlink schedule which all implied that SpaceX should do everything they do).

2) they use spin-out sat gravitational deployment.
The sat stack integrity is done using trivial rods. Nobody forbids them to change current rod design making more suitable for higher attitude deployment ,i.e. introducing specific favorite orientation with high sail surface, adding simple active deceleration devices (not necessary pirodevices) etc. The choice is great.
They use very simple engineering arrangement because they can get away with it. It's optimal for their current deployment requirements.

3) they use very weak hall effect trusters. The sats would require to carry significantly more fuel which implies more weight, which implies less sats per launch, which make launch costs more expensive. Another no less important factor is deployment delay. yet another 500km to climb is a loong loong way which would take significantly more time.

Let return to initial claim about littering with failures.
It's a trivial design feature to add a self kill routine in case of no comms. So the only issue they can have is truster failure..
Indeed they would have to choose or for higher truster robustness (see the problems with being burned in atmosphere), or add redundancy which would "explode" plumbing. It would make everything more expensive.
EDIT: airbus sats for one-web have de-orbit function in case of persisting failure. I would be bold to claim most of the airbus sats have such function. There is nothing tragically complex about adding a banal timer with start sequence.

The real reasons why they don't want 1000km+:
1) ping, self explanatory (they found quite accidentally they can sell service for the LPB effect alone).
2) political noiZe. 1000km is populated significantly more than 500km. sats hang in your eye vision much longer (and produce RF noise much longer, i.e. every sat counts for RF interference longer. It is very bad). Both factors (population and RF noise) make 1000km orbit significantly costlier.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/24/2020 10:05 pm
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/24/2020 10:09 pm
They have star trackers
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 08/24/2020 10:11 pm
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).

The Starlink website says they have star trackers, which are built in house.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/24/2020 10:20 pm
They have star trackers
So 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.

A combination of Star Tracker and GPS  and there is little likelihood of a multiple dissimilar calibration systems to the IMU failing at the same time. Even with a failing IMU having Star tracker and GPS and some IMU data would still make the sat able to determine a rough attitude even during a deorbit. A multiple 3 or four different system failure means the sat is probably without any power: batteries are dead and solar array non functional. Basically practically nothing is working. The usual culprit is the solar array failed to deploy.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 08/24/2020 10:29 pm
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).
I've put three antenna differential GPS devices on ships. A .5m antenna spacing gives you pretty accurate orientation data. 1m is better.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/24/2020 10:39 pm
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).
I've put three antenna differential GPS devices for ships. a .5m antenna spacing gives you pretty accurate orientation data. 1m is better.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: lonestriker on 08/24/2020 11:00 pm
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).
I've put three antenna differential GPS devices for ships. a .5m antenna spacing gives you pretty accurate orientation data. 1m is better.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/24/2020 11:44 pm
I'm kinda confused about the mounting for the ride shares:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaPs2rcWAAAKO5c?format=jpg&name=medium)

Even bearing in mind that this is a highly misleading picture, due to the fact that the fairing is blocking the view of most of the Starlink stack, it looks like the Skysats are off-center.

Looks like the PAF for the Skysats is anchored by its corners to the four sets of tensioning bars used to hold the Starlinks in place, but the off-center thing is kind weird.  Is this just not fully populated, or am I having trouble interpreting the perspective?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/24/2020 11:47 pm
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). 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/25/2020 12:36 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/25/2020 12:39 am
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?

Yes
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: soltasto on 08/25/2020 01:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/25/2020 04:10 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: soltasto on 08/25/2020 09:07 am
The rideshare user's guide on the SpaceX website
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 08/25/2020 11:33 am
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.

On space telescopes, star trackers are good enough to keep the sat stable to within a tight orientation. Otherwise Hubble wouldnt be able to make good images. So I imagine yes, they are good enough.

If the sat is tumbling, they may inform the direction of the tumble (depending on angular velocity) but not where its currently looking at. Not sure if they would be used for that purpose though. I dont have personal experience with star trackers, just detecting stars in an image that was taken with a stable telescope
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/25/2020 02:24 pm
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?

It's the rideshare user's guide (found at spacex.com/rideshare)
https://storage.googleapis.com/rideshare-static/Rideshare_Payload_Users_Guide.pdf
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LiamS on 08/26/2020 12:45 pm
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/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/26/2020 02:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 08/26/2020 03:17 pm
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.
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.
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/26/2020 07:40 pm
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.
A confused lawmaker? For shame sir!


The underserved areas of NC are probably out in the west end of the state where it's mountainous. In the costal flats, at least in the areas I've been through, the population  density and topography favors good service.


Gongora, you're the expert here. Without factoring in topography, how realistic is it to expect the early minimal sat deployment to give good coverage as far south as NC? However that comes out, mountains won't make it any better.



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/26/2020 08:00 pm
North Carolina looks to be in the 34-37 degree latitude range.  Wasn't beta testing supposed to start at 44 degrees?  They could probably have consistent service for most of CONUS in the first quarter of next year.  They could hit 13 operational launches in September, and those would be moving into position over the remainder of the year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 08/26/2020 11:13 pm
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.
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.
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 08/27/2020 03:26 am
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.
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.
 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.

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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 08/27/2020 05:27 am
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...

That would not cover a school building.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/30/2020 10:31 am
From ChickenNES on the Discord:

Quote
Seems like Starlink V2 with laser interlinks might be closer than thought

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4719869002?gh_jid=4719869002
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/30/2020 11:03 pm
From ChickenNES on the Discord:

Quote
Seems like Starlink V2 with laser interlinks might be closer than thought

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4719869002?gh_jid=4719869002
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 08/30/2020 11:14 pm
From ChickenNES on the Discord:

Quote
Seems like Starlink V2 with laser interlinks might be closer than thought

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4719869002?gh_jid=4719869002
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/31/2020 12:26 am
From ChickenNES on the Discord:

Quote
Seems like Starlink V2 with laser interlinks might be closer than thought

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4719869002?gh_jid=4719869002
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.

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.

Very interesting listing.  I wonder how much of it is subtle communication to observers.  This seems like skills they could have in house already or develop in house. 

I agree that they are probably settled on the v1.0 deployment and laser interlinks will be coming after initial deployment. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/31/2020 02:18 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/31/2020 02:21 am
It's more like 4 months to bring all of the satellites from a launch into operation, not 2.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/31/2020 02:53 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aero on 08/31/2020 03:08 am
I was wondering, what is the ratio of weather delays to actual launches in the last few months? It seems pretty high, 4 to 1? Or maybe I'm mixing in some mechanical caused delays, too.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/31/2020 04:32 am
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.

4 Starlink launches per month from 2 coasts would be incredible to witness.  But it may be possible with the month that SpaceX has recently raised.

I agree with your earlier point that laser interlinks are essential for higher inclination orbits.  We’ll see when they show up.

I’m not sure it will be in the first 1440.   Much of those may already be waiting for launch.  The v2 version may get built later this year with a lull between v1 and v2 deployment.

Exciting times.  Starship will be needed in 2021
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/31/2020 04:07 pm
From ChickenNES on the Discord:

Quote
Seems 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)
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.

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.
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.


I also think they have a plan to integrate operations with both types of sats at any point in the deployment. It would hinge on having enough foresight to work it into the routing scheme ahead of time or at least being able to update routing algorithms right down to the user terminal.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/31/2020 04:52 pm
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.

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.
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.


Even in the initial deploy of 1440, if they make every third plane crosslink sats, the planes would be close enough over the North Atlantic to allow crosslink to Europe - I think. If it doesn't quite reach they can salt some in amongst the non crosslink planes. This opens up a link to Europe, limited ocean connectivity and if they do some salting, less of a forklift job when it's time to replace sats.


OTOH, if the manufacturing timeline speculation is correct, the crosslink go into the next phase of deployment.


Question: do we have enough info to know if crosslink will work between sats at different altitudes?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/31/2020 07:42 pm
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.

The only limitation on the non-interlink sats is that they have to use ground-bounce.  But that's fine for most low-latitude subscribers.

I agree that they need the interlinks for high latitude, but the most important unserved markets are aviation and maritime, where there's no ground to bounce.  I'd expect them to partition the network into interlink and non-interlink systems, and allocate spots according to the geographical characteristics.  In the long run, the interlink versions dominate, but I don't think they're under any particular time pressure.

If forced to choose between serving high-latitude and low-latitude customers, the low-lats are a no-brainer first priority.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/31/2020 09:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/02/2020 01:14 am
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

FCC page for these notices: https://www.fcc.gov/document/auction-904-application-status
explanatory document found therein: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-960A1.pdf
About 3/4 of the ~500 applications are still in the "incomplete" list.  They could be missing information on the application, missing supporting documentation, need to request a waiver for various reasons, etc.  Resubmissions are due September 23.

FCC main page for the auction: https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904
the "Application Search" tab provides some public information on the submissions (not much)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/03/2020 05:37 am
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.

I'm not that concerned about filling up the first license, but the license for the next 8000ish is only about 9 months behind the first license, isn't it?  I think they're fine if they have Starship in service and at decent cadence by early 2023, but a big hiccup there could make things interesting.

There's a third license out there as well, isn't there?  Has that been approved by the FCC yet?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ClayJar on 09/03/2020 12:43 pm
They just said in the Starlink 12 launch webcast that they have been testing two Starlink satellites with the space lasers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/03/2020 12:43 pm
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.

At T-4:45 in

https://youtu.be/_j4xR7LMCGY
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/03/2020 12:44 pm
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/1301500710656159745

Quote
In initial tests of Starlink, the team has been collecting latency data and performing standard speed tests of the system

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1301500711633444865

Quote
Results 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

Edit to add: SpaceX have deleted the previous tweet and posted a corrected version

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1301512142055600128

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/03/2020 12:45 pm
They just said in the Starlink 12 launch webcast that they have been testing two Starlink satellites with the space lasers.

Excellent news, exciting to see this development.  Deployment can’t be too far away.

My gosh Starlink is going to make SpaceX worth hundreds of billions. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/03/2020 02:11 pm
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/03/2020 02:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: capoman on 09/03/2020 02:39 pm
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 concern trolls are using old space thinking that what you see is what you get. SpaceX is knocking off the challenges off one by one, same as they always have. Also, if anyone thinks that the initial speed tests and latency test are any indication of what it will be like down they road, they are mistaken. This network, in spite of additional users joining in will see improvement over time, and I think SpaceX will continue to stay ahead of demand, unlike incumbent ISP's who put their six month upgrade orders in when a network is already over saturated. Things that will improve performance from the beta tests:

More satellites - many more satellites
Improved hardware and software - both satellite and end user
More ground stations, more bandwidth on each
Satellite to Satellite laser links.

SpaceX will not stand still. They are just getting started, an the promised speeds and latencies look like they possible considering this is only a beta test with new hardware and limited satellites. Looks pretty promising.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Callezetter on 09/03/2020 03:45 pm
The same persons who also can't fathom that there is likely a big cross-pollination between the SpaceX and Tesla teams because "that's not how business is done". There must be A LOT of areas where it's a pure win-win to share research and experience between the companies when it comes to metal alloys, scaling of manufacturing, or life support systems just to name a few.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/03/2020 04:08 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 09/03/2020 04:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: capoman on 09/03/2020 07:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 09/04/2020 01:59 am
There's also some less tangible advantages SpaceX has that most business types in these industries probably have trouble quantifying. You have to realize the Elon's speaks the language of engineers and knows what gets them excited. The best engineers work on a project because they genuinely love the idea, and couldn't care less how much they get paid or how much work they have to put into it. That's IMO one of the biggest reasons SpaceX/Tesla can pull off all sorts of things that big aerospace / communications companies just can't. I think Elon's tweeted about this before - that maybe it was a little unfair, because his companies really kind of have a monopoly on the 'best' (frankly, most engineering output per dollar) engineers available. I honestly believe the difference, if quantified, could easily be an order of magnitude in engineering value per dollar/time/etc.

In some ways, it's a bit of a positive feedback loop - by having such extreme but still nearly realistic goals, SpaceX can attract that talent that actually makes such goals possible. And then when those engineers get tired and overworked, they can take a break and work for, erm, a more traditional aerospace company while they're not at full output...

I mention this because one of the most brilliant engineers I know just told announced (when the webcast came out) that he had been busy working on ISLs for the past year, and that it all finally worked. They have been indeed very quiet about progress related to Starlink compared to other SpaceX projects.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 09/04/2020 02:13 am
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.

I think some kind of ground based infrastructure will be needed to make a compelling, coherent telecommunication offering.   There are many customers in the western US that are currently underserved served, but densely packed enough that one or two towers on local high spots would work.    This would be a good way to add customers without saturating the orbital assets
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/04/2020 03:18 am
From an FCC filing today (not really anything new besides this page)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/04/2020 03:21 am
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: lonestriker on 09/04/2020 04:58 am
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.

People also forget that there was doom and gloom when Elon fired Starlink leadership in 2018 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-starlink-insight/musk-shakes-up-spacex-in-race-to-make-satellite-launch-window-sources-idUSKCN1N50FC?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter) for being too slow.  They have a strategy that seems to have worked for them in most other endeavors and follow the Silicon Valley software startup ethos: get the minimally viable product up and running quickly and then iterate quickly and deploy often.  The pace at which they've been innovating has seemingly been increasing; particularly if you throw in the concerns from astronomers regarding both optical and radio interference that SpaceX had to address along with their tech improvements.

To go from Tintin A and B two years ago, to ~11 launches of ~60 satellites is an insane pace.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: bodhiandphysics on 09/04/2020 08:24 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/04/2020 01:55 pm
This would be required of any natsec related payloads on Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/04/2020 02:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/04/2020 02:41 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/04/2020 02:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/04/2020 02:44 pm
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

Yes, valid admonition.

I note that those three results shown are actually just two results.  One result was a duplicate.  They were tests done on June 30 at 8:53 pm and 8:43 pm, respectively.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: launchwatcher on 09/04/2020 05:41 pm
"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..)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/04/2020 06:03 pm
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 constellation.

http://www.mit.edu/~portillo/files/Comparison-LEO-IAC-2018-slides.pdf

We now know that SpaceX is opting for quite a bit fewer than 30 gateway antennas per ground station, at least at this stage.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 09/04/2020 06:32 pm
"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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: launchwatcher on 09/04/2020 07:48 pm
"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.  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.

If carrier A always sends traffic to customers of carrier B through an A-B interconnect point near where the traffic entered A's network, and this causes congestion on carrier B's network, it's ultimately carrier B's problem, and B needs to add capacity or adjust where it interconnects to A to resolve the problem.    In any event, A generally has little visibility into what's going on inside B and vice versa. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 09/04/2020 08:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/04/2020 10:02 pm
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.
Several possibilities come to mind.

1- That using a Starlink flatpack buss making a specific DOD SDA interconnecting sat separate from Starlink but to DOD natsec cyber and comm security protocols. Since they would be same physical size as a Starlink sat they would be mixed into the Starlink stack but otherwise not noted as being there. Stealth deployment of asset.

2- Hosted payloads on the larger V2.0 sat that would be deployed by Starship. Earlier V1.0 sats may have a demo of the prototype hardware. Could be a sensor (optical/IR to UV or RF). Could be a Laser comm. Could be a phased array operating on DOD military frequencies. ....  Starlink network is used to transport the encrypted data encrypted at the hosted device and not on Starlink computer assets.

3- Something else completely such as dealing with NSSL contract requirements for launch of a DOD natsec payload such as the SDA constellation items being produced by other contractors.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: eeergo on 09/05/2020 05:09 pm
From an FCC filing today (not really anything new besides this page)

Why are two of the three quoted results the same one, with the same test ID?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/05/2020 05:36 pm
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

Seems this is something that ramps up as service ramps.  Add customers, earn revenue, add gateways, repeat.

Also would expect they are working to keep Adding gateway prices down too.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 09/05/2020 09:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 09/05/2020 10:10 pm
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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/05/2020 11:13 pm
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.

This.

I don't have specific experience with SpaceX or US government satcoms, but generally speaking, when a U.S. aerospace company position requires a Secret level clearing or higher for non-manufacturing positions (e.g., engineers, managers, executives), it's often for liaison type work to coordinate on bids or proposals for government work, oversight of such work, financial analysis, contract reviews and audits, mission design for contracts already awarded, et cetera.

Now, in the context of a Starlink-specific job opening, DistantTemple's supposition is exactly the same as mine when I read about this the other day.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/06/2020 05:03 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/06/2020 05:12 pm
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like a way to kill several birds with one stone.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/06/2020 05:31 pm
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 ..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/06/2020 05:35 pm
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

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/06/2020 05:48 pm
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

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 satellite
For  Gateway is up to 5 degrees  accordance new Space X  files for FCC  is possible, but really I mean is 15 degrees  ..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/06/2020 05:56 pm
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

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 satellite
For  Gateway is up to 5 degrees  accordance new Space X  files for FCC  is possible, but really I mean is 15 degrees  ..

From 40 to 25 is a change for both gateways and user terminals.  High latitude gateways (above 62 degrees latitude) communicating with high inclination sats would be down to 5 degrees.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/06/2020 09:52 pm
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.

You're dealing with two different things here:

1) Vanilla-flavored customers, where the service level agreement doesn't guarantee a particular quality of service.  These customers expect adequate service, but that's frankly very easy to provide using third-party transit ISPs, which usually are massively overdesigned to handle peak traffic.

2) Customers that either have a VPN or some kind of SLA that specifies a particular QoS.  A good example are these much-discussed financial customers, who are willing to pay huge premiums for guaranteed lower round-trip times.  There will also be live video and audio networks that use services like this.  Content distribution networks will often use services like this, although they tend to be more throughput-sensitive than RTT-sensitive.

Best practice for customers that purchased QoS-sensitive SLAs is to "mark" their packets, so that the routers and switches make different routing decisions based on the DSCP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiated_services) markings.

How this plays out in Starlink ground stations will likely change over time.  I'd guess that things will evolve somewhat like this:

1) When there are no interlink birds, all traffic will be bent-piped to the nearest ground station.  In the vast majority of casesą, the ground station will offload the packets to a transit ISP, and that's the end of it.  (Note that what you do with DSCPs at inter-ISP exchange points is... complicated, and largely a matter of the SLAs that SpaceX will have with those transit ISPs.  In some cases, SpaceX may choose to implement tunnels through the transit network to nodes where they can better process however they've marked the traffic.)

2) When there are some interlink birds, or even if there's a reliable amount of extra capacity in the orbital segment, some DSCPs will be ground-bounced back into the orbit segment to be forwarded, with less latency, closer to some IXP that can handle the DCSPs with more precision.

3) At some point, there will be a full interlink system with enough bandwidth in the orbital segment to keep the stuff with specific QoS requirements on orbit through most of the transit path.  Even then, I'd guess that a significant amount of best-effort traffic will get offloaded pretty quickly to the ground and fed into terrestrial transit systems.

Another way to look at this:  SpaceX will start out as a pure access ISP, purchasing wholesale bandwidth from a variety of transit ISPs.  Over time, as their network builds out, they'll start providing some of their own transit facilities.  In this respect, they'll be a very vanilla-flavored ISP.

_____________________
ąThe only case I can think of where traffic won't immediately be offloaded is where the ground station is so isolated that it has no access to a transit network, and needs to ground-bounce the traffic to some other bird to get it close enough to a ground station that can handle the offload.  I'm still kinda wondering if SpaceX will go to the trouble of putting ocean buoys every few hundred km along heavily traveled air routes, or whether they'll just wait to enable aviation services until the network's mature enough to deal with the interlinks.  I'm guessing the latter.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/06/2020 10:26 pm
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 ..

This is a pretty standard architecture for a network of bent-pipe GEO satellites, but it doesn't make much sense for NGSO constellations like Starlink.  They'll have to do their own traffic shaping, likely on the birds themselves, and they'll likely just offload the traffic to third-party transit ISPs at the first ground station capable of doing so.  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.

Things like billing don't usually happen packet-by-packet, although the access point edge router (i.e., the satellite itself) will keep track of how much data flows through it for a particular customer.  That information is sent to the customer management system, which can make decisions about throttling or extra billing for over-use.

The architectures for lawful intercept in the internet are distributed, usually with the access edge router able to clone the packets to and from the node under surveillance to a secure law enforcement collection point.

Update:  Per my correction to vsatman down-thread a bit, I'm updating terminology.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 09/06/2020 10:59 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/06/2020 11:21 pm
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 dead Starlink sats die in their initial deployment orbit, which is so low it will deorbit on its own pretty quickly, and in the meantime there's not much else that low that it's in danger of hitting.

But lets suppose that we're only talking about the ones that die in their operational orbit and lets further suppose we want to send a craft up to deorbit them.  I think it's really highly questionable whether it makes more sense to put grapple fixtures on every satellite or just make the craft you send to deorbit them more capable so it doesn't need a grapple fixture.  If you have a 1% failure rate, then you have 100 grapple fixtures that you're deploying for every one that you need to actually use in an external deorbit mission.  Instead of those 100 grapple fixtures, maybe make your deorbiter so it can grab onto some existing part of the satellite.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/06/2020 11:54 pm
Yeah, Starlink is kind of unique in having such a low orbit. OneWeb, Iridium, etc, have much longer lived orbits... essentially immortal. Starlink satellites, I believe, deorbit faster than the usual time it takes to do advanced mission planning and launch.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/07/2020 12:08 am
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%.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/07/2020 04:04 am
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%.

This issue feels like an attack vector that is being inflated by the Starlink critics for propaganda purposes. So what if the failure rate stabilizes at say 1-2% in the long term. All these sats deorbit passively relatively quickly. Real concern is better reserved for the less ambitious constellations like Oneweb and Kuiper who will orbit at much higher altitudes, creating actual long term risk if satellites are not actively deorbited.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/07/2020 04:18 am
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%.

It's half that if you skip v0.9
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/07/2020 07:40 am
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. 

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??
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/07/2020 08:20 am
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 edge 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??

The answer to all of these questions is roughly the same:  Starlink will be a fairly traditional ISP with a fairly traditional architecture--at least in terms of its border elements and its access edge routers.  The access edge routers are the satellites themselves, and the border elements are the ground stations, each of which will peer with one (in the case of a single transit connection out in the hinterlands) or more (in the case of a ground stations co-located at an IXP) border elements of other autonomous systems.

Just like any autonomous system, the Starlink ISP will be responsible for doling out IPv6 addresses to its subscribers, using standard IPv6 methodologies.

Quote
2) Where (place) will be device what  is responcible for throttling user traffic??

A common way of throttling is to "traffic shape", where the access edge router (the satellite) receives traffic with a short inter-packet arrival time and sends it out with a longer inter-packet time.  For TCP applications that burst short amounts of data, this just makes it appears that the round-trip time has increased.  For apps with long, sustained bursts of traffic (like streaming), eventually a traffic-shaped input queue overflows, packets are dropped and, if it's TCP traffic, the TCP endpoints will drop into congestion control and slow-start, which throttles the rate at which the endpoints themselves send packets.

In either case, the satellite performs this function.  It receives some kind of directive to cap the bandwidth on a particular address, and it changes its queuing behavior, just like any other access edge router.

Quote
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??

No, the satellite is the access edge router.  It just clones the flows and sends the copies to the law enforcement server it's told to.  You can also do this at the ground station/gateway, as long as all the traffic flows through it, but that'll get weird as the inter-satellite links come online.  However, as long as very little traffic is being monitored, it's not much of a burden on the satellite.

Note that the law enforcement server is just like any other IP address.  All of the complexity is in the request to establish the cloned stream and ensure that the request is authentic and has proper authorization.  After that, the clones packets are merely encapsulated with some kind of identifying information so that the server knows what from what flows (and users) they were intercepted.

Note that we're only talking about lawful intercept here.  Of course these days, we also have states that are doing extra-legal bulk collection of traffic, and that's a whole different story.  From the Snowden revelations, we know that the US was setting up on large IXPs that handled international traffic and just hovering up everything and cloning it in bulk.  That could get... interesting... in a satellite network, especially one where you're doing ground-bounce back into space for intra-AS traffic.  Since Starlink by definition has international reach, that could give some of these state actors fits.  I would imagine that SpaceX is having lots of classified discussions about stuff like this, with a variety of national security agencies from various countries.

Update:  Fixed terminology.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/07/2020 08:57 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/07/2020 12:46 pm
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%.

More like 13% for v0.9 (8/60) and 1.3% (8/653) for v1.0, per the numbers compiled by jcm here (https://planet4589.com/space/stats/megacon/starbad.html). That's an order of magnitude improvement in reliability between generations, and I fully expect to see reliability continue to improve. That's just what SpaceX does.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/07/2020 01:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 09/07/2020 02:02 pm
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.

Not just improved tracking infrastructure in the ground, SpaceX releasing their own positioning data has helped massively. The Starlink TLEs on Celestrak regularly show rmse < 50m. Considering this is a 3D space, ging from 500m to 50m increases the possible density by 1000x.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/07/2020 08:07 pm
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?

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.

One thing:  I've been using the term "access router" wrong.  I should have said "edge" or "distribution" router.  The access router is typically customer premise equipment.  In Starlink's case, this will be the subscriber's ground station.  The satellites are the edge routers.  So you wind up with an architecture that looks like this:
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/07/2020 09:22 pm
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:[/quote]

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 ...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: John Santos on 09/07/2020 09:44 pm
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 ...
[/quote]

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, which would make them repeaters or hubs, which they definitely don't do.  If they make any decisions about where to forward individual packets (to a particular base station or access point) based on the packet's destination, then they are routers, and I am certain they do this.

GEO satellites are usually repeaters because they forward everything received on a particular uplink to a particular downlink.  They are pipes, not networks.  The routing decisions are made on the ground, before sending the packets up, or after receiving them from the sat.

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.

P.S. sorry for the garbled quoting.  The post I'm replying to has the quotes garbled, and I don't know how to fix it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 09/07/2020 10:04 pm
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.

OneWeb is an analog repeater architecture, as part of many questionable decisions to get something working cheaply. Starlink is most definitely a digital packet router, in fact Elon talked about using an IP-derived protocol.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/07/2020 10:12 pm
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 ...

What John Santos said.

Starlink will almost certainly not use standardized routing information protocols.  It may even encapsulate IP packets with some kind of header that's easier for the satellites to deal with, although I wouldn't count on this until most of the satellites are inter-satellite capable.  But the satellite is going to have the functionality of a router, because that's what it needs to operate:

1) It will have an IP address, if for no other reason than to send and receive management information.

2) It will receive routing information and digest it into a form that makes it easy and efficient to switch packets.  The routing information may be wildly non-standard, but the basic function is a necessity.

3) It will understand what endpoints are directly connected to it and manage traffic for those endpoints, based on policy loaded into it.

4) It will perform congestion control operations.

5) It will store and forward packets, instead of switching them.

These are all obvious requirements without which any NGSO satellite system that isn't a static bent pipeą simply can't function.  None of them require using OSPF, RIP, EIGRP, or any of the other bajillion IETF-sanctioned routing protocols, nor do they require switching specifically on the IP address.  But if it fulfills all of the functions of a router, it's a router.

___________
ąGEO systems typically are static bent pipes.  They talk to lots of subscribers, but only a very small, fixed number of ground stations, with which they're always in contact.  That allows the ground station, rather than the satellite, to act as a kind of proxy endpoint for all of the subscribers.  (Indeed, one of the ways that GEO systems increase TCP throughput is by multiplexing all TCP connections onto a single TCP-like connection and then de-multiplexing them at the ground station, eliminating all of the SYN-SYN-ACK delays that occur during connection establishment.  Trying running an IPSec-based VPN over a GEO satellite some time, and see how long it takes before you're smashing your head against a wall waiting for the simplest of web pages to load.)

An NGSO satellite like Starlink can't do this, because subscribers and ground stations go over the horizon all the time.  The subscribers are talking to different birds at different times, and their traffic is offloaded at different ground stations.  That implies that packets need to be actually forwarded, rather than just tunneled to a fixed location.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: intelati on 09/08/2020 02:49 pm
twitter.com/planet4589/status/1303339099621855232

Quote
More orbit data overnight confirms that SpaceX now have control over S-1734 and it is no longer decaying

Talk about working till the final hour to save the Sat. Will be interesting to see how this saga ends

Also, it's very illuminating about the orbital insertion at such a low altitude. Continuing the parabolic trend line, it appears as if the reentry was imminent (About a week from now)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 09/08/2020 03:49 pm
Perhaps Space X will arrange a revolution here too ...

Since being disruptive is almost Musk's raison d'etre, that in itself would be a strong pointer that SpaceX will do something different to established convention :) But we already know from other sources that the Starlink constellation is going to be a  mesh network.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 09/09/2020 02:57 am
This is the mesh satellite network patent, which is assigned to Google. The  inventor did a horizontal move to SpaceX shortly after the Starlink announcement and Google & Fidelity invested $1 billion in SpaceX for Starlink.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US9647749B2/en

https://www.wired.com/2015/01/google-spacex-investment/

He's now at Amazon working on Kuiper

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-krebs-76484b40/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 09/09/2020 06:45 am
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

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Arb on 09/09/2020 09:28 am
...
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

Interesting article. The author's conclusion:
Quote
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: smoliarm on 09/09/2020 01:39 pm
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

Thanks for the link.

Some comments to this post.
First, the author says:
Quote
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.

As I recall, 227 kg was the mass of so called Starlink v0.9, the first batch launched in spring 2019, which lacked some comm. channels (Ka, IIRC). And as I recall, 227 kg was the FULL mass of each "v0.9" sat.
All the later batches of Starlinks were of v1.0 version with mass of 260 kg, and these sats had Ka band comms.
So, roughly speaking, the difference 260 - 227 = 33 kg gives the weight of Ka channels and has nothing to do with propellant.

Second point
33 kg of Kr - if stored at 250 bar - will take a volume of ~35 l, which requires a sphere with D~42cm.
To fit into 20 cm-thick satellite this volume of Kr we would have to put eight 20cm spherical tanks. It's a lot of space...

And finally
If their ion thrusters have Isp of 1000 s or better (which most likely true), then I don't see why they need so much propellant...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 09/09/2020 02:26 pm
That article took a lot of work and is very useful and informative.

If people can improve or want to challenge any of it, why not take a minute and do it there?  Be nice about it and maybe that guy can start posting here too.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/09/2020 03:38 pm
I don't have much time today to dig around, but I recall calculating a slightly smaller size for the Starlink sats.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/10/2020 07:54 pm
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,
GEO satellites are usually repeaters because they forward everything received on a particular uplink to a particular downlink.  They are pipes, not networks.
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


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: John Santos on 09/10/2020 08:18 pm
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,
GEO satellites are usually repeaters because they forward everything received on a particular uplink to a particular downlink.  They are pipes, not networks.
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
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."

Otherwise, doesn't this jibe with exactly what I said?
Yes, the GSO sat might transmit its downlink to 10,000 terminals, but are there separate channels for each or just is the data just multiplexed on a single data stream broadcast to all of them?  And, if so, does the satellite do the downlink multiplexing, or does it just repeat the uplinked stream from one or a small number of ground stations?

If the GEO sat is just repeating, it is not a router, just a pipe.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/10/2020 09:31 pm
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mn on 09/10/2020 09:47 pm
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'. (unless they use inter-satellite links to just have all sats forward all traffic to one NOC - possible but I doubt that)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/10/2020 09:49 pm
https://lilibots.blogspot.com/2020/04/starlink-satellite-dimension-estimates.html
Thanks for this article!

I mean we can add follow
1) A reaction wheel (RW) is a type of flywheel used primarily by spacecraft for three-axis attitude control, which does not require rockets or external applicators of torque. They provide a high pointing accuracy, and are particularly useful when the spacecraft must be rotated by very small amounts, such as keeping a telescope pointed at a star.

2) Antennas Weight.  Starlink has 6 antennas.  2 parabolic for Ka band with electromechanical drive for pointing and 4 FPA  80x80 cm (S=0.6 m2)   Typical FPA  with 0,6 has weight 10 kg . Total is 60 kg

3) Power for antennas  300 W is too low. Typical  tranceiver power for 1 transponder  (54...150 MHz)  for GSO Satellites  is 100 W . Of course , StarLink  closer to earth, and don`t need  so much power per 100 MHz, but Starlink has 4200 Mhz for Ka band and 2600 Mhz for Ku band ...

4)  ??? What is about Thermoregulation and cooling system. For GSO Satellites it is very important..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/10/2020 10:22 pm
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)

A GEO sat is far away so it is more reasonable to just have a static antenna directed toward a large area of the Earth.

Starlink is in LEO so it is very close to the Earth and has phased array antennas to target much smaller areas of the Earth's surface, so it makes much more sense for Starlink to be routing than it does for a typical GEO comsat.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/10/2020 11:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/10/2020 11:41 pm
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,
GEO satellites are usually repeaters because they forward everything received on a particular uplink to a particular downlink.  They are pipes, not networks.
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

In a GSO satellite, all traffic uplinked from customer stations is forwarded to the set of downlinks dedicated to main ground station (the thing marked "gateway" in your picture), and the gateway is the border router.  Traffic to be downlinked to a particular customer station is uplinked from the gateway with instructions to use the transceiver assigned to that customer.  That's just your garden-variety bent pipe.

The absolute minimum change that Starlink has to make over the GSO bent-pipe architecture is that it has to bind to different gateways at different spots in its orbit, because a single gateway would be below the horizon most of the time.  Could you make that look like a bent pipe?  Yeah--but only as long as all traffic is being sent immediately to the ground.  When the laser interlinks are up and running, the satellite itself needs to decide whether the traffic is better sent to the ground or forwarded to another satellite.  That is 100% a router, and no bent pipe will work.

So which makes more sense?  Having a multi-gateway bent-pipe architecture for the v1.0 non-laser birds, and then having a different router-based architecture for the v1.x birds with the laser interlinks, or just having the non-laser birds be a special case for the routers, where they only have ground stations available in their routing tables as next hops?

The answer should be obvious.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/11/2020 12:42 am
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.

The big difference between routers and switches is that routers "store and forward", i.e., they receive packets into a buffer, throw pointers to the packet onto an output queue, and then the line driver for that particular queue transmits the packet over the next hop to destination when it reaches the head of the queue.

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.

In reality, things are a bit murkier than this, but you can see from these two extremes that a switch really isn't appropriate for something like a satellite.  (It's not really even appropriate for a bent-pipe satellite.)

It's entirely possible that the entire Starlink network adds some sort of strange encapsulation/transformation on top of the IP header, but we usually refer to that as the datalink/MAC layer, and every packet has one.  I do expect the interior routing information protocol (the thing that tells each router what its next hop for a particular protocol ought to be) to be completely proprietary and really weird, but it'd be kinda silly not to use more-or-less vanilla flavored IP wherever possible.  You get to take advantage of an awful lot of open-source software by sticking pretty close to the standards.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: launchwatcher on 09/11/2020 07:07 am
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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/11/2020 09:27 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/11/2020 01:35 pm
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)
Because Elon said so. (and it's needed for the future)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 09/11/2020 01:57 pm
Then why should Falcon 9 differ from a well-proven solution?  Expendable rockets work for everyone else!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/11/2020 02:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/11/2020 03:35 pm
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.
Disclaimer: my networking experience dates back to when hubs were still a thing.


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?


A user terminal location implies a potential area of sky observation that might be constantly changing if in a car, ship or aircraft. A sats position implies an area of earth observation that is constantly changing. Where the two tables overlap a connection can be made. The details get hairy from there but It seems to be a solid but flexible basis on which to build.


Don't even ask which layer would handle this. Beyond my pay grade.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/11/2020 03:54 pm
Why fight it? Is there not some way to build an addressing scheme based on Lon/Lat?

Yes I agree with you: the geographic locations of the user terminals and ground stations, and the orbital locations of all the satellites, will clearly be important factors in selecting the paths along which packets flow.

Also, there are other factors which will likely influence the selection of paths. For example some customers may be willing (indeed eager) to pay for improved quality of service. So rather than handing off their packets at the most readily available exchange point with the destination network they might get preferential treatment and be carried via inter-satellite links to the best exchange point with the destination network.

Here's a concrete example. I'm a Starlink customer in Nebraska, USA and I'm sending packets to a destination in Geneva, Switzerland. If I'm a base level customer, Starlink would hand my packets off at an exchange point in the U.S. and wish them luck arriving at their destination, carried by some transit network's terrestrial links. But if I'm a high tier customer Starlink could carry my packets via inter-satellite links all the way to a ground station in Geneva, only relying on the terrestrial destination network to provide the last few miles of transport from the Geneva exchange point to the final destination.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 09/11/2020 04:08 pm
 Now I'm trying to remember how ATM worked.
 Maybe they'll bring back Token Ring.
 
 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?

 *Old enough to remember thin and thick ethernet. First IT job was updating company computers to DOS 4.0 and consolidating a sl of partitions. Have made enough RJ-45 cables to reach Mars at opposition.*
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/11/2020 08:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/11/2020 08:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/11/2020 08:43 pm
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.

Quote
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?

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/11/2020 08:51 pm
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.

You're confusing the routing and the routing information protocol.  RIP, EIGRP, and BGP are routing information protocols.  The agents that communicate using those protocols are designed to construct a routing information base from them, or use the routing information base to generate information protocol messages to propagate changes.  I agree that there will be nothing standard about the routing information protocol for Starlink.

But the routing itself is simple:  Receive the packet, find the destination IP, search the routing information base for the group containing that IP, get the next hop, throw the packet onto the output queue for that hop.  Lather, rinse repeat.  You don't need MPLS-like tag stacks.  It's just a standard RIB.  All the magic is in the interior routing information protocol.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/11/2020 08:54 pm
@TheRadicalModerate: your architecture would work. That isn't sufficient to confirm it will be the architecture Starlink selects.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/11/2020 09:00 pm
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.

IMO, that's exactly right.  IPv6 addresses are so huge that SpaceX can encode a huge amount of geographic information into the address itself--at least for fixed-location nodes.  Planes, trains, automobiles, ships, and the satellites themselves are a little more difficult, unless you're willing to revoke their DHCP leases on a regular basis and give them new IP addresses.  That's kinda poor form, because TCP doesn't take particularly kindly to ICMP-unreachable errors, and the applications will have to re-establish the connections.  Still, if you're in anything other than an airplane, the amount of time you spend in one geographic "group" is probably long enough that this may be a simple solution.

And it's all layer 3 routing information protocol hacking.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/11/2020 09:01 pm
@TheRadicalModerate: your architecture would work. That isn't sufficient to confirm it will be the architecture Starlink selects.

Quite true.  But Occam's Razor is on my side.  You're trying to solve problems that have already been solved.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/12/2020 06:31 am
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.

Quote
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?

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/13/2020 04:58 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/13/2020 01:25 pm
Does having multiple laser emitters in a cluster for increased bandwidth throughput between Starlink satellites instead of a single emitter doable?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/13/2020 03:51 pm
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.
Hmmm. When you're saying orbits with inclinations greater than 90 deg, are we talking retrograde?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/13/2020 04:13 pm
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.


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.


* A metaphors, not literal.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: launchwatcher on 09/13/2020 05:17 pm
(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.   
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/13/2020 06:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/13/2020 06:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/13/2020 10:51 pm
Does having multiple laser emitters in a cluster for increased bandwidth throughput between Starlink satellites instead of a single emitter doable?

As long as you can tune each laser to a different frequency, your limits become power and thermal, both for the lasers and the for the router itself.  As you increase the number of guzintas and guzouttas, you need more memory and more computation to do the routing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/13/2020 11:41 pm
(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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: GregA on 09/14/2020 04:03 am
Quote
(is)..  having multiple laser emitters in a cluster for increased bandwidth throughput between Starlink satellites instead of a single emitter doable?
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?

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.

... or if aiming/pointing the lasers is the hard bit, perhaps my idea is wrong..  best to keep it to neighbours!?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: GregA on 09/14/2020 04:04 am
"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..)
Do we know where the gateways ground stations are?

Tesla was putting fibre into their charging stations last year IIRC... I was wondering if the charging stations might be used as Starlink base stations in the US and elsewhere in the world.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: GregA on 09/14/2020 07:57 am
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.

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.
That's an interesting idea.

I am thinking it's more likely they'll make an entire shell without inter-satellite links, get it going for USA and Europe and anywhere there's initial money to be made coverage demand. Those areas will continue to have higher demand even once the ISL shells are operating, so will continue to be useful.

Perhaps the preferential choice of an ISL sat will come into play at that point, basically using the initial/current starlink shell for local traffic.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/14/2020 01:30 pm
Do we know where the gateways ground 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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 09/14/2020 04:17 pm
Do we know where the gateways ground 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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/14/2020 04:39 pm
Do we know where the gateways ground 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?

I think it's the other way around.  The "ground station" is the site while the "gateway" is the antenna/dish.  See slide 10.

http://www.mit.edu/~portillo/files/Comparison-LEO-IAC-2018-slides.pdf
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/14/2020 05:53 pm
SpaceX colloquially calls the sites Gateways.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 09/14/2020 07:01 pm
SpaceX colloquially calls the sites Gateways.

That also makes sense from a network point of view. At the gateway, data leaves the Starlink AS into other parts of the internet. Other ground stations are entirely within the Starlink network.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/14/2020 07:21 pm
SpaceX colloquially calls the sites Gateways.

"Gateway" is often used in IETF land for a router that speaks two different protocols on either side of its edge, as in "border gateway protocol".  BGP is the protocol that autonomous systems (hunks of internet managed by a particular ISP) speak to each other about what routes are reachable through each others' ASes.  They typically speak some kind of interior routing protocol like EIGRP or OSPF inside the AS.  However, I suspect that Starlink's interior routing protocol will be proprietary, what with the routers flying around in the sky and all.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/14/2020 07:36 pm
(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.
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 you really think they'll need telescopes?  Or are you using "telescopes" interchangeably with "receivers"?

I'm not an RF or optics guy, but why wouldn't you use a chunk of the TT&C bandwidth to do an approximate phase-lock on your target, while the target did the same to you?  Once you have that (along with the ephemeris data for your target), you can probably get a lobe of the laser to brush the target, at which time both sides of the connection can start sending digital lobe measurements to talk each other in to a firm phase lock.

Can't remember where the video I saw was, but it had each ISL-enabled bird with four links:  one in-plane ahead, one in-plane behind, and two to the birds on either "side" in the adjacent planes.  There's very little relative deviation in the ahead/behind links, but the cross-plane links describe a fairly regular crossing pattern at the tops and bottoms of the inclination.  Seems like once you've got them locked, the math ought to take care of about 90% of guiding the lasers, with the digital lobe measurements taking care of the rest.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 09/15/2020 02:22 am
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.

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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/15/2020 03:35 am
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.
I have to wonder how the five year sat lifetime and concurrent techno evolution will tweak this interrelationship.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/15/2020 04:18 am
(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.
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.
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.


I'm wondering if two or more well collimated and spaced lasers could create interference patterns that would inform the receiving end of beam drift with drift info transmitted back to the sender. Sounds fiddley, but in theory it would take little overhead unless one sat was picking up unwanted mechanical input somehow.


This would work to maintain an alignment but it would be miserable for establishing a link. A technique for that could be overdriving the laser(s) temporarily, making them easier to see while minimizing cooling issues. The larger the receiving field of view, the faster it can be done. A lot of trade space here.



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/15/2020 04:30 am
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 think I remember a video clip of ISL modeling that showed prograde sats being higher latency linking west. Retrograde could fix this.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/15/2020 05:57 am
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...

Mapping from an endpoint lat/long to some network number/subnet in the SpaceX-controlled address space should be easy to do, and more than accurate enough to bind satellites to particular groups of ground stations.

Moving endpoints, especially planes and spacecraft, are tougher, unless you're willing to revoke the endpoints' IP lease fairly frequently, which resets all of their TCP connections and annoys everybody watching Netflix.  If you need a persistent IP address, it probably has to come out of a space that's similar to what you were describing.

For the satellites themselves, I think you're right that there's some algorithm that can eat a state vector and spit out what geographical points the satellite is above.  How this works for multi-hop routing (of which there will be very little, at least in the early days), is a very hard problem, and requires somebody who can combine spherical geometry with queuing theory with their head exploding.

I don't think you need priority tags, but you definitely need a very odd routing information protocol, which probably feeds a very odd RIB.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/15/2020 05:58 am
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 think I remember a video clip of ISL modeling that showed prograde sats being higher latency linking west. Retrograde could fix this.

I don't understand why that would be true.  It's not like you're getting relativistic effects...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/15/2020 06:45 pm
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 think I remember a video clip of ISL modeling that showed prograde sats being higher latency linking west. Retrograde could fix this.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/15/2020 08:23 pm
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 went through the Mark Handley videos (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-k1j7M2-hBfXeECd9YAQ_g) and found statements about east-west links being more efficient than north-south ones, but nothing that implied that west-->east was faster than east-->west.

Handley's very focused on intra-AS routing for Starlink, which is certainly a cool subject, but I still think that they'll offload most traffic ASAP.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/16/2020 01:29 am
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 think I remember a video clip of ISL modeling that showed prograde sats being higher latency linking west. Retrograde could fix this.

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.

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.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdKNCBrkZQ4&ebc=ANyPxKpUH7rRxkRBBAimrlqfjdzwWEHDr0C2FPF5iL3HNyCXyvlr4-ADkGCFwOarsldhA6MYDsxv4d6epG3W0DKC1tiYNNyoPQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdKNCBrkZQ4&ebc=ANyPxKpUH7rRxkRBBAimrlqfjdzwWEHDr0C2FPF5iL3HNyCXyvlr4-ADkGCFwOarsldhA6MYDsxv4d6epG3W0DKC1tiYNNyoPQ)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/16/2020 05:24 am
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.

I'm pretty sure they're down to four laser links per satellite now:  one in-plane ahead, one in-plane behind, one to the nearest bird in the plane to the right, and one to the plane to the left.

Either way, there doesn't appear to be any delay sending traffic west.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 09/16/2020 03:52 pm
Adding 10 Starlink user terminals (dishes) to each of their ships/boats. Wonder if these could be used to support Starlink out of reach of a regular ground station?

“In order to expand its assessment of the end-to-end capabilities of its satellite system, SpaceX seeks authority to test these user terminals on seagoing platforms for a period of up to two years. Specifically, SpaceX proposes to deploy a total of ten earth stations across up to ten vessels, including two autonomous spaceport droneships used to land rocket boosters at sea,” the company wrote in the FCC filing.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/spacex-asks-to-test-starlink-internet-with-its-fleet-of-boats.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/16/2020 04:08 pm
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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 09/16/2020 04:12 pm
Yes that was my takeaway also. No better place to test it in "anger" than on ships in a hostile environment.

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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 09/16/2020 04:20 pm
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.)
The competition. It's not a misprint.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/16/2020 04:36 pm
The Inmarsat offering is L-band like Iridium, not cheap and not fast (but potentially affected less by weather than Ku-band)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/16/2020 04:50 pm
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.)
The competition. It's not a misprint.


100% agree, test the capabilities and once the laser interlinks are up and running then a global footprint is ready to roll.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 09/16/2020 04:54 pm
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 (weather gribs), sms and voice but can't even upload anything decent (like a photo/doc).

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.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
The competition. It's not a misprint.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 09/16/2020 05:06 pm
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'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.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
The competition. It's not a misprint.
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 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 09/16/2020 05:43 pm
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.

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'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.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
The competition. It's not a misprint.
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 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/16/2020 06:49 pm
In its latest presentation to the FCC, SpaceX states that it has not yet had a failure among the last 233 satellites launched.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: capoman on 09/16/2020 06:56 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/16/2020 07:03 pm
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?

They shouldn't need the inter-satellite links to use it from the droneships.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 09/16/2020 07:08 pm
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.

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'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.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
The competition. It's not a misprint.
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 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.
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/16/2020 08:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 09/16/2020 08:38 pm
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.
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/16/2020 08:45 pm
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...

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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/16/2020 10:17 pm
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 relay itself is trivial:  It's just two endpoints glued together, each of them bound to separate satellites.  There's virtually no hardware investment other than however many stations you need to get the needed bandwidth.  There's a small amount of software to make the ground station behave like a router, but it's likely already done for the land-based stations.

The ship and its crew are the expensive part, but you rent it.  When you have enough ISL satellites on-station, you stop renting it.  But if this enables the transatlantic and transpacific aviation markets, it's well worth it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/16/2020 10:21 pm
Ironically, e.g. a mid-Atlantic link would be just ... a bent pipe. Of course the bend is in the other direction compared with how that term is usually applied.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 09/16/2020 10:37 pm
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.
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.

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'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.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
The competition. It's not a misprint.
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 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.
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/16/2020 10:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/16/2020 10:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 09/16/2020 11:02 pm
Right but the interlinks are not active yet and until they do ground stations are needed.  They could put ground stations in the Caribbean but not sure how far that would reach.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/16/2020 11:02 pm
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.

Fair point.  But either way, it's not very difficult, nor is it very expensive (mod renting the ship for months/years).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: GregA on 09/17/2020 04:50 am
The relay itself is trivial:  It's just two endpoints glued together, each of them bound to separate satellites.

If they're trying to cover for transatlantic flights, won't they go too far north for the current shell of satellites?

I've read somewhere they're extending the range to Alaska - would that also be trying to support these flights?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ludus on 09/17/2020 05:18 am
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...

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).

Mark Hadley’s network simulations seem to show V1.0 as surprisingly effective at handling long distance traffic and transoceanic with just a few ocean relay points. It gets better with more laser links but an optimum path still often includes both.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: capoman on 09/17/2020 12:52 pm
Having ships as relay points is an expensive way to do, especially if they have had success with their tests of intersatellite inks. SpaceX has shown that when they test, they often deploy quickly after, such as darksat and visorsats. I do concede that lasers are more complex than sat darkening strategies, but they've known of the need for intersatellite links for a long time, and have probably been working on them for a lot longer than we may know. They seem to do testing when they are very close to deploying. I think the ships are being used to verify how far reach can be over water, and to add them to additional laser link testing. If they sell service to other ships, they'll need to know how big the blind spots are at any particular time of deployment, so they they can verify they can meet SLAs.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 09/17/2020 06:54 pm
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.
 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: capoman on 09/17/2020 07:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 09/17/2020 07:23 pm
What's needed for lower lats (I'm talking 10 degrees North or lower.)? Just a lot more sats?

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/17/2020 07:24 pm
What's needed for lower lats (I'm talking 10 degrees North or lower.)? Just a lot more sats?

Yes
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: capoman on 09/17/2020 08:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/17/2020 09:16 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: groundbound on 09/17/2020 10:13 pm
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...

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).

I've been wondering if there is an intermediate period where ISL's are in-plane only because of the ease of pointing and also a somewhat simpler on-satellite router configuration. If that were the case, adding just a few cross-plane surface stations in the right location might make the network much more efficient.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/17/2020 10:53 pm
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.

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'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.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
The competition. It's not a misprint.
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 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.
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.


What followed was a rethinking of the comms use and an expansion in use in new areas. Today some fleets use tablets with graphical navigation software instead of the old miserable ascii text. Internet for the driver. The messaging now done via normal email. Much more bandwidth is being used. A lot of abuses like driver cams and mics too but that's a whole different conversation.


When SL becomes available over the oceans, and assuming the service is solid and inexpensive, I think the pattern will repeat and demand will skyrocket.


I do worry about weather blocking signal. Rough weather is about the worst time to loose comms.







Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/18/2020 01:08 am
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.


But if you want to test ocean surface links, where better to test than on the ocean. Using ISL from the ocean is a logical next step. A few ISL sats are now climbing to altitude so the engineers can play. What are the odds that more wont follow?


Proof of concept only really needs two ISL sats, one with a view of the ship, the other a view of a ground station. They should be in a position to try this in a month+.


Gongora, how long does it take to get this type of permission?



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/18/2020 02:07 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/18/2020 02:50 am
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
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.   
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cosmicvoid on 09/18/2020 04:13 am
lots of islands that could have a station when they decide they want to go intercontinental.
... snip ...
And for the middle of the ocean far from any islands they will just have to wait for ISL.
Ascension Island & St. Helena for the Atlantic southern hemisphere.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Faerwald on 09/18/2020 04:30 am
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'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.
(It's a good approach, IMHO.)
The competition. It's not a misprint.
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 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.

There is no need for spaceX to compete in the voice call market. They provide a wifi signal then you can use wifi calling on your phone provided your phone provider allows it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_Access_Network (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_Access_Network)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/18/2020 05:18 am
New Starlink presentation to FCC from a week ago, interesting news:

1. Building gateway ground stations throughout the United States and internationally

2. Since before its latest report to FCC in June, SpaceX has launched 233 satellites with no failures

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/18/2020 06:32 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/18/2020 06:37 am
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.

Just to be clear, I'm wondering how many ISL birds you need just to take up the ground-bounce traffic, assuming that all endpoints are bound to non-ISL birds, and the ISL birds only take up the ground-bounce.  It may turn out to have the same answer as if you were promiscuously hosting endpoints on both non-ISL and ISL birds, but I suspect that you can manage with somewhat sparser ISL distribution if the ground-bounce stations are the only things uplinking to them.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 09/18/2020 07:20 am
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"?

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/18/2020 01:35 pm
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.

Agree.  Besides, buoys will be buoys.

Quote
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?

I've attached a picture of ground stations covering the North Atlantic, assuming 550km satellite altitude and 40ş sight angle.  For planes, you can almost certainly take that down to 25ş, which would give you full coverage over the New York-Paris and LA-Paris routes with only 3 ship-based stations.  You'd probably have trouble covering routes from the Southern US to Southern Europe without an additional layer of ship-based stations.

Not also that the 53.8ş satellite inclinations max out at about 57ş latitude, so LA-Paris routes would probably have to wait for deployment of some of the 70ş inclination birds.

Quote
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"?

They're ground-bounce relays:  plane to nearby satellite, satellite to ground- or ship-station, which then relays to another satellite further east or west.  This assumes no inter-satellite links at all.  When the ISL birds are prevalent enough, you can send the ships home.

I don't know if the aviation version of the Starlink "ground" station is suitable to act as a relay or not.  Given that you can't guarantee that planes will be in the right place and the right time, I'd guess not.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: hane on 09/18/2020 02:19 pm
I was curious how many ships are currently out there and I found a realtime map: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-35.2/centery:25.2/zoom:3 (https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-35.2/centery:25.2/zoom:3). There are a LOT of ships going back and forth, even if you just filter down to cargo and tanker ships. If that community was offered starlink for cheap with the caveats that SpaceX will use part of the bandwidth to act as a relay for others, and also that there may be periods that the internet goes down, I would still think many would take them up on that. It doesn't seem like it would take that high of percentage of ships to have it before they could have a reliable path of relays. If enough ships had it they wouldn't need to bother with buoys.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/18/2020 02:33 pm
There is no need for spaceX to compete in the voice call market.

If they manage to get funding in the FCC's RDOF auction they will be required to offer voice service for those territories.  That would most likely be some sort of VOIP phone of course, but they would need to set up (or contract for) some sort of service, not just hand you a wifi router and say "go for it".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/18/2020 08:28 pm
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.
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.


Getting a truck to a particular place at a specific time is meat and potatoes in trucking. Getting a specific truck to line up with that space-time restraint, like getting a driver home, is a whole different thing. Usually the driver gets home late, or the driver spends 3-4 days stuttering and not getting many miles.


If the wheels don't turn, the truck don't earn. It cost me $83/day to own the tractor before the wheels even turned. Set me for a day with no miles and I needed to make a $166 nut and pay for the variable expenses (mostly fuel) that it took to get there before I could even pay for my breakfast. In ships, the scale is different but the principal holds.


It all depends on the ship but my take is that it would be a lot more expensive to demand preferential routing than most people realize. As a WAG, I'd guess that SX would be better off expanding the fleet. Ms Communication, Ms Take and Ms Anthropic?


Even with that, from reading WW2 histories of the North Atlantic convoys, keeping a lock on a sat would be a difficult exercise for any but supertanker or aircraft carrier sized ships.


Neil Stephenson wrote a wonderful piece about undersea cables.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/amp (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/amp)


My take is that the chance of getting permission to tap a cable is slim to none. They might lay their own cable and hook up to it but the cost effectiveness is suspect.


Until they get those high inclination planes it might just be easier to keep focused on underserved ground customers and pickup the ocean traffic later. Setting up ships shouldn't be all that hard but AIUI, certifying avionics is not easy. They can focus on that while the orbital planes are filling in.


I'm really feeling like a crabby nay sayer but it is what it is.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/18/2020 09:06 pm
Some background information. In serving bandwidth to a plane or ship there are two different services to be considered.


The first and easiest is general internet access. The second is industry specific data comms. This is things like hours of service, location, engine state, speed (with geofencing), hard braking and for aircraft, a lot of black box type information.


Trucking is moving to internet based communications via cell phone links but a lot of fleets still use what is generically known as Qualcomm, even if it's somebody else's hardware. I'll speak of trucking but it's all relevant to ships and planes.


If a fleet is using internet with tablets through cell connections making a changeover would call for slipping in a different physical layer and having the hardware to back it up.


If they're using Qualcomm's it might be just as simple or they might have to change out more of the stack. I never got into it enough to figure out how close the system was to OSI. I do know that back when Qualcomms were using GEO sats the addressing got screwed up once and my fleet was getting coast guard messages. Not sure what conclusions to draw from this.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/19/2020 02:47 am
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....
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/19/2020 03:05 am
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....

"Space rated" isn't strictly binary.  There are a range of techniques that can be used to make chips more resistant to problems that would be encountered in LEO, and many of them can be done without any special process change (i.e. the same factory can be used, with no change to the equipment, with only changes to the design files used to make the masks for a particular chip).

One of the simplest things to do is use error correction circuitry on any memory elements on the chips.  This is commonly done anyway for significant on-chip SRAMs but it can be done even for small units of memory like registers of various sorts.  Simply making certain elements of the design bigger can also make them more resistant to certain kinds of radiation.

Then there's always redundancy of higher-level units, up to entire processors or even bigger units.

All these techniques mean more hardware to do the same job, and more design time, and none of them require a different factory, though if you're willing to modify the factory there are even more techniques available.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 09/19/2020 11:12 am
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.

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?

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 09/19/2020 12:58 pm
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.

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?


The cells are in constant motion and you are automatically passed on to a new one as your current one moves away.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 09/19/2020 01:18 pm
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.

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?


The cells are in constant motion and you are automatically passed on to a new one as your current one moves away.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: hplan on 09/19/2020 02:13 pm
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.

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?


The cells are in constant motion and you are automatically passed on to a new one as your current one moves away.

That doesn't make sense. The sats are moving. Unless you are also moving 7+ kps, you're going to be switching from sat to sat.

I'm guessing that what that rumor means is that  the sats can narrow or widen and target the area on the ground that they serve, and that width and target is determined by the normal amount of traffic in that geographic area. That way busier areas get more bandwidth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: GregA on 09/19/2020 03:03 pm
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.

But they will have to also sell mobile terminals for boats (etc) that move about.

If necessary they could sell mobile terminals that significantly restrict speed in specific harbours.

I’m hoping that any mobile starlink terminals will add 4g/5g capability so when you enter a built up area it roams to cellular. The user router could decide when Starlink themselves are congested AND check whether cellular has good performance to decide when to use that cellular roaming.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 09/19/2020 04:30 pm
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.

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?


The cells are in constant motion and you are automatically passed on to a new one as your current one moves away.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/20/2020 01:24 am
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.

Every communication system that you have ever used allocates more subscribers than it has peak capacity if they were all to use it simultaneously.  This is literally how modern queuing theory was developed.

That said, of course you can't allocate an infinite number of subscribers to a single satellite and expect things to work.  Starlink must have some mechanism to load-balance at least subscribers and quite possibly traffic for a region across however many satellites are able to service that region at a given time.  As the satellites move out of the area and new satellites move into it, the handoff between the old birds and the new ones also has to load-balance.

Understand, however, that TCP connections (web and streaming traffic) and UDP applications (voice and live video traffic) don't care about any of that stuff.  They just toss packets into the IP network, and how they magically pop out the other side doesn't matter.  So the fact that the Starlink routing fabric is doing hideously complicated things, including load-balancing to provide adequate QoS, and then telling the ground station to re-home to a different satellite is irrelevant to the applications.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: lonestriker on 09/21/2020 09:00 pm
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.

The Air Force (now Space Force?) tested SL on airplanes.  US rural broadband and the US military are likely the very first markets, but I would really be surprised if they didn't include boats and planes in international waters/air space initially as well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: GregA on 09/21/2020 09:37 pm
...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.

But for now without inter satellite links they can only offer it where they have ground stations.

They seem to be trying ground/boat relay stations which might be for transatlantic flights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ShredderAF on 09/22/2020 11:15 pm
A bit dated, but maybe a nugget in here for someone. From an Air Force Research Lab Newsletter:
"Global Lightning Testing SpaceX Starlink:  AFRL’s Global Lightning team began testing user terminals at Joint Base Lewis McChord with USMC partners. The purpose of this early "preview testing" is to introduce a small number of new military users (including AMC) to the capability and identify unexpected challenges prior to the more extensive test campaign scheduled in September. So far, the terminals and service are performing as expected and our service partners are now moving from basic familiarization to relevant use cases, including configuring their existing COMSEC equipment to utilize Starlink in simulated tactical scenarios."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/24/2020 01:40 am
[Investor's Business Daily] SpaceX Starlink Impresses Air Force Weapons Buyer In Big Live-Fire Exercise (https://www.investors.com/news/spacex-starlink-impressed-air-force-in-big-live-fire-exercise/)
Quote
"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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/24/2020 04:31 am
LOL, Viasat trying to inflate Starlink failure rate and got caught red handed: Letter on Starlink reliability estimate, from Center for Astrophysics - Harvard and Smithsonian (https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=2718944)

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/24/2020 05:20 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 09/24/2020 07:06 am
Hm, just occurred to me from the previous article (and I'm not sure if there's another thread for this) - what's the best latency that current military commsats have? Could there be some actually game-changing capabilities that a low latency mesh LEO constellation could provide?

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

There might be...a heck of a lot more value in Starlink to the military than I had even imagined, simply from a performance perspective. Might even point to the possibility that there's some dedicated ISL applications where you aren't even necessarily going for the nearest neighbor, but furthest neighbor you have line of sight to? (haven't worked out the numbers at all, maybe that doesn't make sense). I mean this is way more than just more bandwidth (I'm sure the military commsats have plenty) or more redundancy in case someone takes out your satellites, it's lower latency than they've ever had before
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/24/2020 08:00 am
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.

Well, the article quoted Tim Farrar and that's the point I stopped reading.

When Tim starts saying really idiotic things, like terrestrial gateways (for satellite internet constellations) costing "$30 million a pop", thats when you know that he is still hung up in the time of Teledesic (late 1990's).
You see, SpaceX already has several  terestrial gateways for Starlink and the cost of those don't come even close to a fifth of Tim's numbers.
That's the problem with Tim: he fully ignores 25 years of cost-developments and technological advances and projects his late 1990's experiences onto the current situation. There is a word for that: stupid.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 09/24/2020 08:01 am

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


Allegedly the Predator remote protocol was some wizard level legendary coding to get the latency down and/or non-noticable when relaying through Ramstein airbase.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/24/2020 08:08 am
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 09/24/2020 09:37 am
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

With one assumption they demonstrate they have no clue how the technology works :

Quote from: Cowen analysts
"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.

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  ::)

The way these business reports work, is they write what someone wants to hear, so an investor laps it up and says "look, this report proves our business strategy is correct!".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/24/2020 10:46 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1309250702867394560

Quote
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."

https://www.investors.com/news/spacex-starlink-impressed-air-force-in-big-live-fire-exercise/

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1309250704389931008

Quote
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."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/25/2020 12:19 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/25/2020 01:22 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/25/2020 03:54 am
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?

1) It's certainly imperative for SpaceX's biz plan to get other countries up and running.  That's of course a regulatory issue.  In some cases (e.g. the EU), it should be pretty easy.  In other cases (e.g. India), it'll take a certain amount of hand-holding.  And in still other cases (e.g. China), it's pretty much a non-starter, unless SpaceX commits to firewalling the traffic.  Even then, I suspect that China will want its own constellation and will be fairly protectionist.  Note that China will be using its soft power to convince weakly aligned countries (e.g. in Africa) to use its constellation.  SpaceX likely has a 3-5 year lead in this.  They should use it aggressively.

2) I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were an optimization model lurking around SpaceX that looks at volume, power, thermal requirements, mass, and bandwidth, and there's a peak right about 260 kg with a throughput of roughly 20 Gbps downlink.  More bandwidth is not always the right answer.  Meanwhile, if I didn't move a decimal point by accident, the number of potential subscribers likely exceeds the demand for quite a while.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 09/25/2020 09:52 am
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.

Indeed, which is basically what Elon has said all along. I suppose there might be some value in paying a consultant to confirm that, if you are one of the "worried competitors", who know nothing about state of the art satellite technology, rather than take the word of SpaceX. Like I said, the consultancy firms get paid for telling people what they want to hear.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 09/25/2020 02:02 pm
 I'm remembering how hard it was to convince bosses that they didn't need $1500 a month T1 circuits anymore when DSL came out faster at $60 a month. A little more if you wanted symmetric.
 
 Letting users stay at 25 degree minimum sure seems like an easy way to up capacity in the early days. Upping the number of sats available to a user also lets you up the numbers of users available to a sat and would let the network concentrate service near heavy areas.
 We had controllers 10 years ago that would automatically plot antenna blockages on ships and adjust for changing heading and position. It should be easier with fixed terminals, but I'm not sure how much authority Starlink terminals will have to choose the next sat they're connecting to using that data. You wouldn't want to switch to a sat that was going to be behind the corn silo in 15 seconds.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/25/2020 03:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/25/2020 03:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/25/2020 03:48 pm
100x oversubscription is likely.

Also, likely a lot of early customers like ships and the military will be paying extra for the privilege. So that could help a lot.

But I don't think SpaceX is gonna be sitting on their hands, here. We'll continue to see a rapid ramp-up in capability for the satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/25/2020 08:26 pm
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.

Yes, I'm wondering if the switch to 25 degrees will stick.  Gwynne was in on one of the meetings this week.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LouScheffer on 09/25/2020 08:46 pm
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.

1KB/sec is also faster than anyone can read or write.  The current constellation could easily support every person in the world simultaneously using a text forum such as this.   Likewise sending and receiving text messages in WhatApp or equivalent, mobile banking payments, access to any library book, and so on.   There's a lot of value to internet access that does not require NetFlix speeds.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/25/2020 10:09 pm
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.  Traffic growth is probably close to 40%/yr, so we should be at roughly 4.3 Mbps now.  This is both down- and up-stream traffic, but in a bent pipe, all traffic is downstream--it just depends which end of the bend you're on.

Seems like SpaceX could realistically plan for roughly 10 Mbps/subscriber over the service life of the current generation of birds.  That would give you 2000 subs per bird.

Average peak rate per subscriber already has oversubscription baked into it.  If we use the 2425 sats I had active over the US at once (see the computation above, using the Cowen 485,000 100Mbps simultaneous streams number), we'd have 4.9M subs, vs. Cowen's 1.5M subs, which they computed at 3x oversubscription.  In other words, if you extrapolate the cable data, you have just about 10x oversubscription.  50x or 100x are way too high.

Note that this is in conflict with my SWAG above, where I guessed that average usage was <<2Mbps, and I came up with 70M US subs. Peak bandwidth per sub is a lot higher than I thought.

For comparison, the top cable ISP, Comcast, has about 28M subscribers, while AT&T, the top telco ISP, has 16M (https://www.leichtmanresearch.com/top-broadband-providers-surpass-100-million-subscribers/).  The total market is 101M.  5% penetration sounds about right.

Now take those ~5M US subs and multiply them by 10 to pluck the low-hanging international fruit.  At $50/mo, that'd be $30B/year in revenue.  In steady state, I get about $330M/yr in satellite manufacturing and launch costs.  No clue on ground station and ops costs, but it's hard to see the whole thing being more than $2B/year, even with transit costs.  $28B/year in profit is a pretty nice business.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/25/2020 11:06 pm
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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/25/2020 11:51 pm
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.)

True up to a point, but if people are going to pay a premium for higher speeds, they're going to be extremely unhappy when they don't get them.  I could see going to 20x for 100Mbps service vs. 10x for 20Mbps service, but reputation is important, especially for the first couple of years after launch.

There are lots of ways to play this:  You can charge disproportionately higher premiums for higher speeds (which should encourage people to think about whether they really need it, making it more likely that those who really need it will use it more often).  You can move your oversubscription points around (which effectively means that you under-deliver on speed sometimes).  You can move your data caps down (which often has the effect of making users use max speed apps less often, which allows more oversubscription) . 

Most likely, you do a combination of all three.  If you do the proper combination, you're awesome.  If you do the wrong combination, you're Comcast.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/28/2020 01:15 pm
Fab new info graphic from Tony Bela:

http://www.tonybela.com/SpaceX%20STARLINK%20150.jpg

Quote
*NEW* SPACEX STARLINK INFOGRAPHIC
(Free to use for non-profit and educational purposes. Available for print publications on request)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: king1999 on 09/28/2020 01:46 pm
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/28/2020 02:43 pm
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....
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/28/2020 02:47 pm
Fab new info graphic from Tony Bela:
...

That would really be better if the creator updated the satellites from v0.9 to v1.0
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Stan-1967 on 09/28/2020 03:04 pm

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....
That’s not an argument against the idea. 

The concept completely changes the problem for the jamming transmitter.   The signal will be orders of magnitude stronger & redundant with each starlink within view of the receiver.  I’ll also point out that per the article, jamming is done on the terrestrial reciever,  not the orbital transmitter.  So under the starlink scheme there would be multiple transmitters in the field of view of receivers, transmitting at higher power intensity.  How an adversary would deploy assets to jam this scheme is vastly more complex than current localized terrestrial jamming capability.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: starsilk on 09/28/2020 03:05 pm
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....

that all depends on the capabilities of the entity doing the jamming. for example, the current navigation issues in the mediterranean around Syria etc are likely to be 'solved' by this because there's no way they would jam '500 km up'.

in a shooting war with China or Russia, then yes, all bets are off.. but then we're really screwed in so many ways GPS would be the least of the problem.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: leovinus on 09/28/2020 04:31 pm
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!

A link to the source info at Arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.12334 
This discussion on GNSS+LEO is equally relevant for other LEO constellations.

A quote from the conclusion in the article
Quote
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 ;)

I was also intrigued by this remark
Quote
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.

After reading the article, yes, you can make GPS more robust (great) but in a way, you just change the attack vectors from physical jamming to software/Starlink hacks. While we know that hack robustness is part of Starlink design, we do not know how well it holds up in practice.

As others have noted, various layers of redundancy against various adversaries.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 09/28/2020 07:10 pm
...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?

1) Yes, for sure.   Air/ship traffic may be significant contributer here

2) Depends on the eventual userbase.   Note SX can scale by launching more sats (with FAA approval), or by launching more capable sats.   

I believe that there are ways to enhance the SL network by adding terrestrial resources for higher traffic areas that might be more cost effective than additional sats.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 09/28/2020 07:18 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1309250702867394560

Quote
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."

https://www.investors.com/news/spacex-starlink-impressed-air-force-in-big-live-fire-exercise/

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1309250704389931008

Quote
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."

Those are near term valid points from the military, but is not a valid long term criticism of SL.

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 its constellation a small number of satellites for polar coverage.    This is already baked into the FCC approvals

[ Corrected FAA / FCC ]
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/28/2020 07:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 09/28/2020 09:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/28/2020 09:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 09/28/2020 09:44 pm
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.

Understood.   SL doesn't effectively cover the oceans yet and won't until they have a very large number of sats with ISL.

Of course at this point in time, SL doesn't cover much of anything because there are not enough SL birds in orbit yet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/29/2020 12:06 am
Some of us had suggested SpaceX would spin off Starlink as a separate, maybe IPO-able, company.

https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1310672832783884290
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mpusch on 09/29/2020 12:16 am
Some of us had suggested SpaceX would spin off Starlink as a separate, maybe IPO-able, company.

https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1310672832783884290

Gwynne said it herself 7 months ago.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/29/2020 04:31 am
Some of us had suggested SpaceX would spin off Starlink as a separate, maybe IPO-able, company.

https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1310672832783884290

The longer they can postpone it the more money they can get for the shares. Ideal is to never IPO, and instead make crazy amounts of cash from operations that they can keep all for themselves.

Next best is to delay at least 10 years and get an IPO valuation of hundreds of billions of dollars, resulting in a massive one time cash inflow when shares are made public.

The sooner they IPO, the less they get for giving up a major part of their ownership stake.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/29/2020 04:57 am
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 🤪
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JamesH65 on 09/29/2020 01:35 pm
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 🤪

For people like Google, it may be enough that Starlink exists because it give them access to many more customers or their advertising. They may regard it as a NRE of getting new business.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: capoman on 09/29/2020 03:10 pm
I suspect the IPO will happen when Starship needs a major funding boost to set up shop on the Moon or Mars.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/29/2020 03:39 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: capoman on 09/29/2020 05:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/29/2020 05:38 pm
[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)
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mpusch on 09/29/2020 06:22 pm
[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)
Quote
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.

Wow, the rest of the article was a good read too.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/29/2020 06:49 pm
Yeh, those are some golden quotes.  Not surprising, I guess.  If it works as it should, it will be absolutely beloved by its target audience.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/29/2020 07:00 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 09/29/2020 07:51 pm
Interesting paragraph from the article about Starlink helping out with wildfire responders (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/washington-emergency-responders-use-spacex-starlink-satellite-internet.html):

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/29/2020 09:08 pm
So:
1) They have somewhat finalized user terminals in production
2) The round base we saw previously has been replaced by some tripod arrangement

If I had to guess, there will be several bases.  At the very least, they need:

1) Smooth-surface freestanding (disc-shaped weight).
2) Rough-surface freestanding (tripod).
3) Roof.
4) Maritime.
5) Aviation.

I wouldn't be surprised to see completely separate packaging for maritime systems (corrosion resistance is important), and aviation (where they'll have to have a viable fuselage-mounted version of the "UFO"--with no stick).  I'd expect the maritime and aviation versions to come out a little bit later than the terrestrial versions, but not by much; it's a big market if they can provide high bandwidth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 09/30/2020 06:51 am
Starlink puts towns devastated by wildfires online for disaster relief workers

Source (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/starlink-puts-towns-devastated-wildfires-175957002.html)

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/waEMD/status/1310660332512190464?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: capoman on 10/01/2020 02:52 pm
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.
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.

Actually, I do agree with you. That is the case for most Tesla investors, however there's a lot of focus on the small profits that Tesla does make by many, investors, media and analysts which I think is unwarranted. I think Elon is doing the dance perfectly as he keeps keeps the capital position in good shape, all while building out massive capacity and constant upgrades. Not exactly correct forum to discuss though. It was just part of my point that Elon will put his mission goals ahead of investors or analysts.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/02/2020 07:22 am
Elon has been busy on twitter this morning

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1311905182230491137

Quote
Starlink will be a revolution in connectivity, especially for remote regions or for emergency services when landlines are damaged



twitter.com/ppathole/status/1311906144760197123

Quote
The initial starlink speeds are really impressive, the sub-20ms latency is just an icing on the cake

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1311923618679607298

Quote
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.

twitter.com/tobyliiiiiiiiii/status/1311921214491779072

Quote
When will the public beta begin?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1311921724540190720

Quote
Very soon for higher latitudes like Seattle
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: eeergo on 10/02/2020 01:53 pm
https://twitter.com/ProfHughLewis/status/1312021242900295688
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 10/02/2020 05:07 pm
Elon has been busy on twitter this morning
[spoiler]
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1311905182230491137

Quote
Starlink will be a revolution in connectivity, especially for remote regions or for emergency services when landlines are damaged



twitter.com/ppathole/status/1311906144760197123

Quote
The initial starlink speeds are really impressive, the sub-20ms latency is just an icing on the cake

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1311923618679607298

Quote
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.

twitter.com/tobyliiiiiiiiii/status/1311921214491779072

Quote
When will the public beta begin?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1311921724540190720

Quote
Very soon for higher latitudes like Seattle

[/spoiler]

At this point the only cloud in the silver lining I'm worried about is as an end user is the bandwidth cap. Am I going to still be stuck with 100 gigs or so a month? That's what I have now so I could live with it, but I'm hoping for more (and at a cheaper price).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Fizrock on 10/03/2020 04:40 am
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.
 
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/107a9e2ef34a455a8894c2dc7be5fad1/view 
 
Here's a description of the contract: 
 
Quote
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.
 
 
source: https://beta.sam.gov/opp/66971f395b1f45c79381e013bbf0c88f/view?keywords=hq085020r0003&sort=-relevance&index=&is_active=true&page=1
 

 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/03/2020 05:47 am
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.
 
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/107a9e2ef34a455a8894c2dc7be5fad1/view 
 
Here's a description of the contract: 
 
Quote
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.
 
 
source: https://beta.sam.gov/opp/66971f395b1f45c79381e013bbf0c88f/view?keywords=hq085020r0003&sort=-relevance&index=&is_active=true&page=1
 

 

This is an RFP development award and faces future downselect.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/03/2020 04:51 pm
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.

There were two awards, that will probably not be downselected unless one of the providers has issues.  Hopefully they will release a little more information soon.  Thread for this program is: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47145.0.  Additional discussion should probably move to that thread.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/05/2020 03:19 am
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.

Well I guess we now know what this job position is for then:

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/06/2020 12:01 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/06/2020 12:57 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1313462965778157569

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: edzieba on 10/06/2020 02:40 pm
Looks like the 'sunshade' deployment mechanism is to just spring-load the shades, and hold them closed with the next satellite on the stack until the tension rods release. No latches, no deployment commands. I guess any concerns about the shades being damaged by collisions is mitigated by the opening process imparting some small additional separation force, and by 'so what if the shade gets dinged a bit?'.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/06/2020 06:45 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/06/2020 11:18 pm
Ya gotta love it when Elon does his development on somebody else's dime, they know it, and are ok with it.

I'm sure that NRO/USSF think it's pretty cool that they're doing their development on Elon's dime.  I believe that the technical term for that is a "win-win".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/09/2020 03:21 am

From Ars Technica, [size=78%]https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/10/spacex-has-launched-enough-satellites-for-starlinks-upcoming-public-beta/ (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/10/spacex-has-launched-enough-satellites-for-starlinks-upcoming-public-beta/)[/size]


Quoting astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell,
Quote
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.



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/09/2020 10:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/10/2020 03:56 pm
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.



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/10/2020 08:11 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 10/10/2020 09:05 pm

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.


The formula for precession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodal_precession) is

ωprecession = -3/2 {RE/(a(1-e)2}2 J2ωorbit cos(i)

or
ωprecession = -K(a,e,i) ωorbit

Relevant orbits have i = 53° and altitudes between 200km and 450km which means
0.00085 < K(a,e,i) < 0.00092

So to first order
Δωprecession ∝ Δωorbit
Δθprecession ∝ Δθorbit

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/10/2020 09:50 pm
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.

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/10/2020 10:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/10/2020 10:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/11/2020 02:47 pm
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.
Thanks. I've never heard the word used that way. Usually it a precursor to a RUD.


There is one case you missed. Raise all sats at one time but with different thrusts.
Pros:
-no additional dV
-altitude will minimize unwanted precession.
-gets them up there at least as fast as any other method. I think.
Cons:
-Thrusters might be unthrottleable but burns will be at perigee and can burn shorter or longer as needed.
-nothing else that I can think of.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/11/2020 03:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/11/2020 06:24 pm
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.

Once you're close to the right spot, small adjustments are pretty easy to get the precision just right.  I don't think it matters hugely for the actual coverage, but the various planes cross each other at the latitude extremes, so having the position right is important for avoiding collisions.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 10/12/2020 07:31 pm
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:


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.

For a circular orbit periapsis is undefined or arbitrary.  So are the various anomalies.  For an almost circular orbit the argument of periapsis is unstable, small perturbations can cause large changes in the location of periapsis.   Argument of latitude, which is measured from the ascending node rather than periapsis, is the better measure.

Note that for several satellites in almost circular, almost the same, orbits the arguments of periapsis could be substantially different, so the anomalies do not refer to a common reference point.  The anomalies alone do not tell you the spacing.   However the ascending nodes will be almost the same so the arguments of latitude will have  almost the same reference point and do tell you the spacing.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Star One on 10/12/2020 09:05 pm
A good news story for Starlink.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/elon-musks-space-internet-gives-native-american-tribe-access-to-high-speed-broadband-for-first-time/ar-BB19WZ0t
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/12/2020 11:11 pm
 Speaking of anomalies....
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/12/2020 11:18 pm
Hopefully that cover is just cosmetic.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 10/13/2020 07:58 am
Bit of glue will sort that!

However, isn't Boca a little far south to pick up Starlink coverage?

Hopefully that cover is just cosmetic.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZChris13 on 10/13/2020 08:35 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 10/13/2020 08:41 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 10/13/2020 08:58 am
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.

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.
/s I hope?
Otherwise, those six eggs ARE the ground relay.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 10/13/2020 09:00 am
Opps. I was looking at it using a viewer and didn't see the dishes. Need to put on my glasses next time.

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.

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.
/s I hope?
Otherwise, those six eggs ARE the ground relay.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/13/2020 04:04 pm
Opps. I was looking at it using a viewer and didn't see the dishes. Need to put on my glasses next time.

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.

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.
/s I hope?
Otherwise, those six eggs ARE the ground relay.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/13/2020 05:56 pm
 I doubt if they'd want to do even user beta testing without multiple sats in view, hence the high latitudes first. But they'll still want to be in contact as far south as possible.
 If users and gateways can both go down to 25 degrees for now, a Mexican border gateway would be able to support a user quite a ways north. Not needed for initial operation, but getting the network sorted out isn't a small job, so why not bring southern gateways and company user terminals into the mix as early as possible?
 I've already told them I have a spray can of contact cement and can fix that thing in five minutes, but no response yet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/13/2020 07:16 pm
SpaceX qualified to bid for the RDOF auction.  It doesn't show what speeds/latencies they are allowed to bid.

(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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/14/2020 01:19 am
SpaceX qualified to bid for the RDOF auction.  It doesn't show what speeds/latencies they are allowed to bid.

(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
Sorry for the low value post but....Alpha Foxtrot Tango.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SciNews on 10/17/2020 03:41 pm
Business Insider - "3% of SpaceX Starlink satellites may be failing in orbit around Earth"
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starlink-internet-satellites-percent-failure-rate-space-debris-risk-2020-10
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/17/2020 05:00 pm
Business Insider - "3% of SpaceX Starlink satellites may be failing in orbit around Earth"
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starlink-internet-satellites-percent-failure-rate-space-debris-risk-2020-10
This is actually old info see this post.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.msg2135620#msg2135620 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.msg2135620#msg2135620)
This is where the actual data comes from for this article. 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tuna-Fish on 10/18/2020 11:38 am
+ $4M to then launch them with other Starlinks.

The rest of the analysis is sound, but just note that the contract does not include launch. That will be bid for separately.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SciNews on 10/18/2020 07:46 pm
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."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/18/2020 08:50 pm
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."

It's less a question of how much junk is produced but instead how much there is at any one time.  As long as the arrival rate of dead birds is no larger than the rate at which they naturally deorbit, the system is stable.  Since the lifetime of the satellites is roughly five years and the natural decay time is also five years, doesn't that fulfill the condition, at least once the constellation is mature?

That doesn't mean that collisions can't happen.  It just means that the probability of collisions won't increase once the constellation is mature.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 10/18/2020 09:32 pm
FYI:  In September, SpaceX registered to do business in at least 18 additional U.S. states (SpaceX was already registered to do business in at least 7 U.S. states).

It's a small necessary regulatory step for rolling out Starlink to customers, but it is nice to see.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/19/2020 02:39 pm
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-canada-1

Starlink in Canada, lots of rural users that would love broadband.  Some real revenue possibility 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/19/2020 06:37 pm
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-canada-1

Starlink in Canada, lots of rural users that would love broadband.  Some real revenue possibility
Because 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/19/2020 11:20 pm
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-canada-1

Starlink in Canada, lots of rural users that would love broadband.  Some real revenue possibility
Because 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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 10/19/2020 11:29 pm
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-canada-1

Starlink in Canada, lots of rural users that would love broadband.  Some real revenue possibility
Because 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.
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.
Also there will already be a "dense" stream of sats tracking along the 53rd parallel, so issues with buildings and terrain blocking signal from such a low angle will be somewhat reduced. (And 24/7/365 coverage is pretty certainly available near the 53rd parallel.)
Edit: At 66miles/degree, that's about 11 degrees extra, so final edge of coverage at 64 degrees North! Will Canada allow them even shallower angles? Its probably worth sticking the pizza box on a decent pole if that's your only internet! .... 64th Parallel Gets rather a lot of Canada!
Edit2: Obviously students mucking out sheds on their Uncles farms, having emigrated from SA, will now be distracted by youtube and social media, and the remoteness will be lost!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/20/2020 02:27 am
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-canada-1

Starlink in Canada, lots of rural users that would love broadband.  Some real revenue possibility
Because 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.

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.
Canada fliped the switch to on.

See
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2144144#msg2144144
Canada just approved Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/20/2020 02:45 am
There's still another authorization they need in Canada (for communicating with the Starlink satellites).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/20/2020 03:02 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/20/2020 01:05 pm
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1318537696181161984

Quote
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…

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1318538670157320196

Quote
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."

From https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/20/microsoft-expands-its-space-business-pairing-its-azure-cloud-with-spacexs-starlink-internet.html:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/20/2020 02:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/20/2020 02:05 pm
https://youtu.be/aY1_UMQvTcw

Quote
Microsoft's Tom Keane & SpaceX's Gwynne Shotwell discuss Microsoft and SpaceX.

Learn more: http://msft.it/6001TFNfB
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 10/20/2020 02:19 pm
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.

The bottom of the page shows it was last modified on 2020-07-02.  I think the page hasn't been updated yet to reflect the approval of Starlink for service. 

It looks like SpaceX has had it's application approved and the license has been sent if this article is correct. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/elon-musk-tesla-starlink-low-earth-orbit-high-speed-rural-internet-rockets-satellite-1.5768338 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/elon-musk-tesla-starlink-low-earth-orbit-high-speed-rural-internet-rockets-satellite-1.5768338)

"The Commission received 2,585 interventions regarding Space Exploration Technologies Corp.'s BITs application," reads the notice.

"After consideration of the comments received, the Commission has approved the application and a BITS licence is enclosed."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: chopsticks on 10/20/2020 02:20 pm
I'm from Canada so my newsfeed shows Canadian news sites and this popped up this morning: CBC.ca: Elon Musk's satellite internet plan gets green light from Canadian regulator.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/elon-musk-tesla-starlink-low-earth-orbit-high-speed-rural-internet-rockets-satellite-1.5768338

I don't know if this adds anything but according to this, Starlink is now authorized to offer service here! Really looking forward to it.

Edit: Oops, it looks like the poster above me posted the same link at the same time
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/20/2020 02:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 10/20/2020 02:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aero on 10/20/2020 03:04 pm
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.)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-teams-with-elon-musks-spacex-to-push-cloud-battle-with-amazon-into-orbit-11603188007?mod=flipboard

Quote
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,...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SciNews on 10/20/2020 03:10 pm
Azure Orbital was announced in September
"Introducing Azure Orbital: Process satellite data at cloud-scale | Azure Blog and Updates | Microsoft Azure"
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/introducing-azure-orbital-process-satellite-data-at-cloudscale/
New blog post: "Azure Space – cloud-powered innovation on and off the planet - The Official Microsoft Blog"
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/10/20/azure-space-cloud-powered-innovation-on-and-off-the-planet/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/20/2020 03:12 pm
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.)

You can find articles on the same topic on many other sites.  One on CNBC was linked above, I've seen others on Space News, Geekwire, and other sites already.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/20/2020 03:29 pm
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 think it will be a matter of patience, the birds are currently v1.0

Who knows what 2.0 or 3.0 etc evolve into, what form factor etc.  They need a much bigger rocket first.  Boot strap up the service.  Pretty interesting times.

What clients, customers and service offerings people come up with.  Elon and SpaceX will make bank!

Competitors will be trying to elbow in too, but that's a big expensive list.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: hplan on 10/20/2020 03:42 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 10/20/2020 03:45 pm
What a pairing. Azure is giving AWS a run for its money of late. Perfect triangulation by SpaceX.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: intelati on 10/20/2020 03:47 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/20/2020 03:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 10/20/2020 04:15 pm
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.

Indeed.   I also speculate that the building of SShip was directly funded by the billions of investment dollars coming into finance starlink.   Which makes sense because a large portion of the initial investment in SL is the launch of 10000 sats, and starship is the key enabler for that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 10/20/2020 04:21 pm
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.

They could, following in Google's footsteps. How do we know they haven't?

I wonder what the initial contact was. SpaceX astroturfing the datacenters?

Or was Microsoft already aware of some of the advantages?

I hope so. Point-to-point fiber between any two datacenters, current or future? That's what Starlink offers Azure.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 10/20/2020 04:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 10/20/2020 05:59 pm
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?

I could be remembering it incorrectly, but I thought Gwynne said Microsoft made first contact in the interview with her and the Azure dude that is floating around.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 10/20/2020 06:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/20/2020 06:38 pm
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?
The limiting factor is frequency.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 10/20/2020 07:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 10/20/2020 07:41 pm
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.

With 800 being less than 20% of the initial constellation, I'm going with not anywhere close to 'most'.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/20/2020 07:42 pm
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?
The limiting factor is frequency.
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.
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 10/20/2020 08:13 pm
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.... 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 10/20/2020 08:46 pm
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. AWS who knows when.

I'm curious as well to know when satellites with ISL begin launching in quantity. Would they necessarily tell us if the previous launch already had more ISL-capable satellites, who knows.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/20/2020 08:50 pm
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.

They don't even need to wait for Starlink, they're also working with SES/O3B.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/20/2020 08:53 pm
I wasn't that impressed with the Keane/Shotwell corporate schmoozing; it was pretty generic.  It's hard not to see this as much more than, "Yup, Azure needs the internet, and we provide internet."  That's certainly interesting for applications that need high-bandwidth cloud computing access in places where there isn't high bandwidth, but that's just the Starlink bread-and-butter pitch with Microsoft singing along.

What was interesting was that Microsoft is a subcontractor on the SpaceX SDA project for the hypersonic missile early warning prototype.  The most likely thing happening there is that Microsoft is doing the ground segment for that system.

That could get pretty interesting.  A lot of analysts have been flagging ground segment services as a major market opportunity that's currently under-served.  It's possible that Microsoft has decided to take a run at this market.  For further evidence that this is the case, consider this from SpaceNews (https://spacenews.com/spacex-teams-with-microsoft-for-space-development-agency-contract/):

Quote
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.”

That sure sounds like Microsoft is looking to build a TT&C service provider on top of Azure.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 10/20/2020 11:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 10/21/2020 12:28 am
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.

Azure is already testing Starlink connections. With all those things you listed when do you suppose AWS will have any Kuiper connections?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/21/2020 01:34 am
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.
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.


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'.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/21/2020 02:07 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/21/2020 02:14 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/21/2020 03:03 am
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.
How are they recognized?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: haywoodfloyd on 10/21/2020 03:31 am
The Canadian CRTC has granted Starlink an Internet License...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/elon-musk-s-spacex-gets-crtc-application-approval-for-starlink-satellite-internet-1.5151633

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 10/21/2020 04:20 am
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.

Correction. Bezos does not have any orbital rockets or satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 10/21/2020 04:36 am
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.
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.


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'.

Well, that’s good news. So no hard limit on individual satellite capacity then. Just a constraint of schedule and resources, which can be addressed over time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 10/21/2020 06:17 am
What would be needed to have a larger downlink capacity? Laserlink and downlink capacity would enable high data rate point to point data transfer.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 10/21/2020 05:32 pm
French communications regulator autorizes 3 gateways for Starlink, to cover Spain, France, Germany, UK, Netherlands, Ireland and a bit of Portugal territories.

«@Arcep authorized @SpaceX #Starlink gateways in 3 municipalities covering much of Western Europe:
Gravelines
Villenave-d'Ornon
Belin-Béliet
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/21/2020 05:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: haywoodfloyd on 10/21/2020 05:38 pm
I don't think that Elon is intending to use Laser Links sat-to ground as a major push. I think you will see it used mostly in sat-to-sat communication.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/21/2020 05:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: haywoodfloyd on 10/21/2020 06:09 pm
I can't find any pictures that show parabolic dishes on the satellites themselves. Could you post one?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/21/2020 06:18 pm
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/21/2020 06:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/21/2020 06:41 pm
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.

The current sats are not using phased arrays for gateway communications.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/21/2020 06:47 pm
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.

The current sats are not using phased arrays for gateway communications.
Thanks. Which definitely limits to a likely 2 gateway connections.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/21/2020 10:48 pm
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 a minor drawback compared to the transparency (or lack thereof) of the atmosphere at laser wavelengths.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/22/2020 05:46 am
I think they may have made the Ka band dishes darker on the more recent satellites?  Hard to tell what's just different lighting conditions sometimes.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/22/2020 12:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 10/22/2020 02:56 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/22/2020 04:23 pm
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.
And lasers don't like cloud cover
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/22/2020 04:33 pm

Those ground gateway link antennas look ~f/.5. Was expecting more like f/4 for a tighter, denser beam.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/22/2020 04:45 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/22/2020 04:52 pm
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.

The current sats are not using phased arrays for gateway communications.
Thanks. Which definitely limits to a likely 2 gateway connections.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/22/2020 08:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/22/2020 09:01 pm
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 balance is really easy for now:  end user bandwidth = gateway bandwidth.  Every packet that comes up from a user goes down to a gateway, and vice versa.  Things get more complicated with ISLs, but even then the same equation applies network-wide.

I don't think you need more than one gateway channel active at any one time.  If a gateway goes down, the spot beams can handle traffic to a standby gateway while the  the dish seeks for a new primary.  So you really only need two channels, one active and one seeking for the next scheduled gateway as it comes over the horizon.

You could actually make do with one gateway channel, but it depends on how spots are being managed.  Two degrees of freedom:

1) Are spots fixed geographically, or do they move continuously with the satellite?  Fixing them geographically makes routing much, much, much easier, because customer addressing can be fixed to the spot in which they live.  (Mobile is different, but let's ignore that for now.)

2) Do all of the spots handled by a single bird switch over at the same time, or can a setting spot be replaced by a rising spot while leaving the other spots alone?

If spots are both fixed geographically and all spots go on- and off-line simultaneously, then you only need one gateway link for the whole satellite.  The satellite will drop offline for a moment during spot changeover, at while time the gateway dish will re-home.  But that won't work if only one spot is replaced at a time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/22/2020 09:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/22/2020 11:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/24/2020 12:40 am
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.
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).


I incorrectly stated that the gateway links need to handle the aggregated customer load. They need to handle this AND any traffic from the gateways needing relay onward. Because the ISL links won't count against bandwidth they will have a leveraging effect on capacity that I am only now realizing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/24/2020 12:48 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Confusador on 10/24/2020 01:00 am
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?

Starlink sats are stacked in two columns, that picture shows three dishes on three ends of two starlinks.  It's clearer in video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKI1ZzSRkjw

Edit: better video
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/24/2020 02:57 am
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.

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/24/2020 06:17 am
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.

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

I cut-and-pasted your comment over on to the Starlink: Networking Protocols Discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51990.msg2146180#msg2146180) thread, and attached my answer.  I suspect that this is gonna take a while, and most people will be bored, as they were when the thread got spun out originally.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Eagandale4114 on 10/27/2020 03:25 am
A few redditors have received public/paid beta invites

Quote
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.


Reddit link (https://reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jitefj/i_just_officially_received_an_email_invite_to_the/)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 10/27/2020 03:53 am
A few redditors have received public/paid beta invites

Quote
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.


Reddit link (https://reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jitefj/i_just_officially_received_an_email_invite_to_the/)

Even with lack of 24-hour coverage during the early stages, I would imagine that the duration of any service interruptions will be fairly short as the next satellite hurtles towards your position at 26000km/h, right?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 10/27/2020 04:34 am
A few redditors have received public/paid beta invites

Quote
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.


Reddit link (https://reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jitefj/i_just_officially_received_an_email_invite_to_the/)

Not bad at all, and not just Better Than Nothing, but better than what I've got now.

I will be in as soon as that is offered down here.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 10/27/2020 08:37 am
$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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 10/27/2020 09:01 am
$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.

Highly developed, densely populated, small geographic area. Not exactly the primary Starlink target market.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 10/27/2020 09:16 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 10/27/2020 10:29 am
$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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 10/27/2020 11:54 am
$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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 10/27/2020 12:04 pm
$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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 10/27/2020 12:58 pm
$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???

Agreed. We have a local ISP that puts microwave dishes on rooftops. $200 for a personal antenna, 100 Mbps symmetrical, $35/month. Large, pre-wired condo buildings will share faster dishes with 500 Mbps symmetrical, same monthly price. Comcast is a scam.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vipeout on 10/27/2020 01:57 pm
$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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 10/27/2020 02:03 pm
$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.

True, and the reason I'm interested in Starlink. By if you have $50/mo broadband and still want to help SpaceX, it might be more effective to just spend $50/mo at shop.spacex.com (http://shop.spacex.com), at least until Starlink is able to service the people how don't have good broadband already.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 10/27/2020 02:30 pm
I'm interested in Starlink (at all) because I currently subscribe to two ISPs for redundancy.  Starlink isn't competitive with my primary Spectrum connection (200/10) but it would destroy my secondary DSL connection (14/1.5 ish), although it would be about 2x the price.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/27/2020 02:36 pm
 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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 10/27/2020 02:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/27/2020 02:53 pm
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.

That's going to require a very busy launch schedule at 60 birds per time.  Like 2+ launches per month. 

Best to make use of the better weather conditions in FL between now and next May.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/27/2020 03:14 pm
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?

The satellites they've already launched should cover CONUS, it will just take a few months for all of them to move into place.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 10/27/2020 04:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/27/2020 04:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 10/27/2020 05:01 pm
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.
There was absolutely no rudeness in my post, but in the interest of not derailing the thread I won't get into that.

Edit/Lar:  We let a fair bit of snark go, but if your post got deleted, check yourself first. Also, metadiscussion of moderation actions isn't on.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 10/27/2020 05:23 pm
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.

Constructive criticism based on informed opinion usually has a more positive reception. Considering your first attempt was based on a lack of knowledge of the target market for Starlink, I'm afraid I have to assume the same for your second attempt.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/27/2020 05:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: novo2044 on 10/27/2020 05:26 pm
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.

What is the off grid market, really?  Rural communities obviously.  Hughesnet has a million subscribers with far inferior service but let's say Starlink never gets bigger than Hughesnet.  Hughesnet has 1 million subs.  At ~1200$/year that's a rough starting point of 1.2 billion in revenue a year.  Of course, most people expect Starlink to have far more customers given it's superior latency and bandwidth.

But what else counts? Boats?  Planes?  RV?  Emergency services? The military? High speed trading? Defraying costs by adding imaging or other communications links to their massive LEO constellation?  Weather?  Real time imaging?  Enhanced GPS?

Why do you think it's somehow inconceivable that recouping an estimated 10 billion outlay is impossible in this scenario?   People are champing at the bit to invest in SpaceX and Starlink.  Like literally willing to pay a 8-10% premium just to get in on the action.  Maybe.... You are missing something?  Maybe a lot of things?

Just food for thought.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/27/2020 05:44 pm
Plus, Starlink is easily competitive with both DSL and fixed mobile (3G, 4G, and LTE) internet. Millions of people in the developed world rely on that.

Starlink also makes a super attractive backhaul for rural cell towers. Can plop down a tower anywhere, especially if combined with ample solar panels and battery.

EDIT: there are about 50-60 million DSL ports in the world. At an average monthly price of $25-50/month, $300-600/year, that’s up to $15-40 billion per year in DSL revenue that they can compete for.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 10/27/2020 05:54 pm
The FCC’s broadband survey is missing 20 million people, a new study suggests (https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/6/21126744/fcc-broadband-survey-high-speed-internet-access-wireless)

Quote
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.

20-40 million potential subscribers seems like a good market, and that is just USA.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 10/27/2020 05:56 pm
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.

Fast forward a few years, and Starlink can ease into a more mainstream unsubsidized price with a very well-serviced constellation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 10/27/2020 06:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/27/2020 06:13 pm
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.

The 60 satellite flat pack design was a big step to making all of it possible.  I puzzled for a long time on how they could arrange all of it and get the number of satellites up there.  60 per launch with the card shuffle like release is low cost high density.  Really genius.

Elon is the king of boot strapping they way up to dominance.  Start making revenue as quickly as possible to fund the next round of development.

It's worth remember these satellites are v1.0.  In a few years with Starship and a v2.0 or v3.0 satellite then my gosh, what will be possible.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/27/2020 06:13 pm
 Any schedule for the higher inclinations? That will be when airlines and military really takes off.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/27/2020 06:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 10/27/2020 06:30 pm
Any schedule for the higher inclinations? That will be when airlines and military really takes off.

I haven't seen any timing for this.  Assuming that the FCC approves the constellation modification, it seems possible that SpaceX will start launching Starlink out of Vandenberg for the higher inclinations.  In other words, the launch of the higher inclination shells might be somewhat independent of the launch of lower inclination shells.  I am also assuming that SpaceX can get their ducks in a row quickly on the optical links.

In any event, my guess on the higher inclinations would be service by the end of next year at the earliest.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 10/27/2020 06:32 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 10/27/2020 06:34 pm
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.

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.

I think all expectations will need to be adjusted several times based on the constellation that is in the sky at the moment.  In a couple of years, the intended market may be much different than is evident now with this pricing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 10/27/2020 07:03 pm
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.

Well if you are right, then they have seriously miscalculated from the start.

You are not from the US, are you? We have a *very* large rural population, and despite what you may have heard we are not all dirt poor. I live a fairly short ways out of town, and my current internet is GeoSat at $165.00 a month, cap at 100gb, latency at +650ms, often peaking to over 1000. I am not remotely alone. There is a huge market for *anything* better.

And that does not even include the military market, boating and aircraft, nor the rest of the world that does not have a jam packed infrastructure.

Now that said, this is a business venture, and those are inherently risky. Musk has himself stated that the first order of business is to not go bankrupt, like every other attempt at LEO internet has done. But I'm pretty sure they did some market analysis before they started, and if they didn't then their investors did.

This market exists, and if Starlink can reliably service it the business case is strong.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/27/2020 07:07 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1321181245951348746

Quote
SpaceX nicknamed the Starlink user terminals "Dishy McFlatface," per the official installation guidelines:
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/27/2020 07:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 10/28/2020 12:57 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/28/2020 02:03 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/28/2020 02:21 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/28/2020 02:30 am
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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/28/2020 02:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: 1 on 10/28/2020 02:54 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/28/2020 03:04 am
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...)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 10/28/2020 03:29 am
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.

Yay SX.   Fund the flights to Mars.

The "internet to the starving children of Montana song and dance" is the needed narrative in order to obtain absolutely gobsmackingly enormous wads of cash from the US gov't as well as a minor requirement to obtain spectrum.   

And yes, it will actually benefit some folks that don't have fast internet connections now.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: savantu on 10/28/2020 04:17 am
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.

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.

I expect they will have pricing based on regions. Rest assured it will not be the same everywhere.  For some areas they will likely issue far lower prices with data caps.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 10/28/2020 04:33 am
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 think once Starlink has ISL and have placed gateway/terminals at a large enough number of data centers, Starlink could have network topology possibilities that are difficult/impossible from hard-wired internet.

I think most current comparisons are only valid when there is no ISL and no gateways at data centers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/28/2020 05:03 am
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.

Parts of the 5G millimeter wave spectrum are unlicensed, and could be used.  However I suspect that they don't have the range for village-level access, and certainly not for a group of rural neighbors.  Might do OK for a sad little trailer park in the middle of nowhere, though.

I was thinking that this was probably a telco-deployed service.  When you go international (a big chunk of this kind of market), you almost certainly have to use the local telcos so that the political system stays adequately greased.  But it's a very nice little package to deploy a "base station in a box" with no tower but everything you need to instantly turn on the backhaul and start snagging mobile phones that are beaconing nearby.

Towers are a hefty chunk of the capex for new base stations.  If you cut that out and provide a nice solar-powered pico/micro-cell, with maybe a ruggedized PowerWall for battery backup, the capex is reduced enough to change the equation on where it's profitable to deploy new cells.

Of course, for more than about a quarter mile radius of coverage, you really need a tower.  But I can think of a lot of markets that would be enabled with a half-mile diameter coverage area.

One quibble:  You said "leasing circuits" up above.  Ain't no stinkin' circuits, man.  It's all just IP packets, VoLTE and whatever the VoLTE equivalent is in 5G.  If telcos want special QoS, they can buy that instead of the bandwidth used by the riffraff.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/28/2020 05:07 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/28/2020 05:36 am
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...)

It wouldn't make sense to leave the satellite capacity vacant. They will adjust prices to fill the satellites. The last satellites that HughesNet and Viasat launched were about 3 years ago. The next ones are coming soon and will have increased capacity (which either translates to more subscribers or more bandwidth per subscriber).

Anyways, these satellites last years, decades even. It will have to be a long war of attrition to get to the point where the satellites fail or are retired with SpaceX starving them of enough revenue that they can't be replaced - which would yield your hypothetical scenario of losing all their customers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: indaco1 on 10/28/2020 07:02 am
...
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.

I suppose the price has been defined to optimize revenues with the present capacity of network and devices production. They still can't afford millions of customers, they must exploit elasticity of demand.

Furthermore there's not just consumer market.

Mutimodal backup connections require brand new modes. Many users and operators could have a Starlink connection just for failover and link aggregation. Already seen that it could help in case of disaster.

If long range latency will be significant better than fiber there will be a myriad of other uses.
One that I like is routing handshaking, control messages, requests etc. on a fast channel to benefit overall performances even when high volume payload data will be routed on fiber.

Sorry if already said.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 10/28/2020 07:31 am
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.

Then there is the commercial side which is probably the same number again. This all assumes that we have the coverage and especially in the lower latitudes. That will take time but sailors are a patient lot.

Current solutions:

Iridium Go  - Right now the standard is Iridium go (much like a 2400 baud dial-up connection). Very very limited. Equipment $800 plus $150/month for the middle package.

Viasat 15 mb  and has caps (thresholds) to limit use after you reach the caps. $4,500/month. Cost of equipment is $25K excluding installation.

That's about it for solutions. So it's a market of around 500K and not price sensitive. Seems to me that if SpaceX gets the coverage right and keeps these prices they will have a great additional market that nobody else can touch.

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.





Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tuna-Fish on 10/28/2020 09:45 am
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.

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.

I fully expect that a Starlink subscription that allows you to move will cost more than twice of what the home internet version will, simply because they will be able to charge more and everyone will still buy it. People who have boats tend to have more disposable income, and the quality of the service offered is simply ridiculously much better than the alternatives.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 10/28/2020 10:44 am
snip...
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.
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.
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mandrewa on 10/28/2020 11:55 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: haywoodfloyd on 10/28/2020 11:59 am
$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).
No Tommyboy.
One of the criteria is "expensive" Internet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: haywoodfloyd on 10/28/2020 12:59 pm
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?

Nevermind.

It's already available here...

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.starlink.mobile
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 10/28/2020 01:03 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: hplan on 10/28/2020 01:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: novo2044 on 10/28/2020 01:09 pm
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 feel like Spacex has a great business model even if Starship never exists.  I find it sort of humorous when people complain that space exploration is pointless when we have problems on earth.  Musk's goal is Mars, but he may generate another 100 billion dollar company or two along the way.  Who knows what other benefits may arise once we are able to access LEO and beyond cheaply?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: haywoodfloyd on 10/28/2020 01:20 pm
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?

Yes they do but that doesn't mean you don't have trees on your property that might block some of the view your dish needs.
You are the only one that knows that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/28/2020 01:44 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/28/2020 01:46 pm
Are we just not going to mention that the Starlink terms of service require acknowledging the political autonomy of Mars?

“ 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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mandrewa on 10/28/2020 01:49 pm
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 can think of two more conscionable alternatives to that.

a) Set the price by the location.  The more demand there is for a given location, the higher the price.  Contracts would be limited to one-year at a time.  And at the end of a contract the price would change, either up or down, depending on the demand at that location.  For this to work the cost of the dish probably has to be bundled into the contract.  Users would only pay the full cost of a dish if they fail to return it when they end their account.

This would require a fair amount of consumer education to get people to understand why this is necessary.   And there would be negative stories about some people paying a lot for the same service that others pay relatively little for.  But it could probably be done.

b) Set up a price like $99 per month or less, but ration and give preference to those that don't have alternatives or have poor alternatives.  Starlink could build a database of internet service access across the country.  They would create different tiers of preference depending on the other choices a person has.  Something like this is probably what the government would favor, given the goal of internet access everywhere in the United States.  This would be more likely if the government was paying a subsidy for every account created that has no other choice or relatively poor alternatives.

But that means it gets all quite complicated.  Simply building an accurate database of internet access is going to be challenging.  And when you involve the government like this it gets at least three times more complicated.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/28/2020 01:52 pm
Regarding the Starlink terms of service requiring the acknowledgment of Mars’ political autonomy: I realize those terms are unenforceable and almost everyone is probably treating it as a joke, but it does make you think...

...if Starlink becomes an essential part of the world’s telecommunications infrastructure, if Starship starts becoming a common way to travel, SpaceX will hold some significant cultural and even political power to sway governments to allow Martian self-governance. Elon can also do a similar thing indirectly by his leadership of Tesla, now one of the most valuable companies in the world (although this probably isn’t something that would end up in Tesla’s terms of service). Maybe The Boring Company, too.

This is one of those things you slip in as a “joke” a few decades before political autonomy for Mars becomes a real political issue...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dglow on 10/28/2020 01:57 pm
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.

Funny, that’s exactly what the cable providers did for years with their broadband service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mn on 10/28/2020 01:59 pm
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_newsletter

Quote
What 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"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dlapine on 10/28/2020 02:45 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: indaco1 on 10/28/2020 02:58 pm
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 Stariink because is cool or for backup or just to win online multiplayer games.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/28/2020 03:43 pm
Pricing for institutions...

Quote
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.

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.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-free-internet-texas-satellite-2020-10

$300,000/(135) = $2222 per year = $185 per month.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/28/2020 03:45 pm
Pricing for institutions...

Quote
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.

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.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-free-internet-texas-satellite-2020-10

$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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mandrewa on 10/28/2020 03:48 pm
Regarding "demand at a given location", I'd say region, not location.  Satellite footprints are hundred kilometres wide.   

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.

A ship in the middle of North Sea could compete with London, Amsterdam and Hamburg for capacity.

Because of the above, a ship in the North Sea would probably never use the London, Amsterdam, and Hamburg footprints.

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 is an argument for option B that I describe above where basically the government is rationing the service, and paying for their control with subsidies to Starlink.  But there are many downsides to doing it that way.  Even so I suspect that there will be some countries that prefer to do this and Starlink should just go along with them. (Although maybe Starlink might reserve a certain percentage of their capacity in each of these countires that they are going to sell to the highest bidder.)

But in general I think option A is the better choice.  It allows Starlink not only to balance demand within a wealthy country like the United States but it would work for poorer countries like say Mozambique.  There the fluctuating price is not only a reflection of the differing demands for service at different locations, but it also reflects the differing ability to pay.

Starlink can try to maximize their revenue or they can try to maximize the number of people that they are supporting with quality service.  I think the second goal is the better goal for several different and maybe subtle reasons.  (And I should probably go through that exercise of trying to explain why, but I'll skip it for now.)

So for instance, maybe in a typical location in Mozambique, the price might be only $10 per month, and although that sounds very low, it would be enough to prevent the service from being oversubscribed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/28/2020 03:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 10/28/2020 03:50 pm
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 Stariink because is cool or for backup or just to win online multiplayer games.
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.
However ISTM it is a very sound strategic decision to price it firmly above installed fibre, to discourage those customers rushing to Starlink.
Also View of the sky, and the ability (legal and practical) to mount the Mc pizzabox (:-)) on a south facing wall/roof is harder for many in a city.
Maybe SLv2, or 3 etc. will have many more dishes, antennae, and processing power, and will support a vast increase in bandwidth and connections.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 10/28/2020 04:28 pm
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.
"Forgot"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 10/28/2020 04:43 pm
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.



Yeah it's as bad as that, and worse. Viasat's "soft cap" where they may "prioritize other customers during peak times" is pretty much a wall where you will have trouble checking your email when you go over it, no matter the time of day.

Apparently there were those that thought Starlink would enable them to replace their fiber for something faster and cheaper and are now disappointed, but those folks just need to go get distracted by something else. Starlink is such a godsend to those of us just a little out of town but who have been stuck with $150+ service and huge latencies and low caps.

Unless Starlink just doesn't work (and that doesn't seem to be the case so far) in the areas it is designed to compete in this initial offering is already better and cheaper than anything else. If you've already got fiber or even a reliable 5G connection, yeah stick with that, but for the tens of millions of the rest of us, switching to Starlink is a no brainer.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: haywoodfloyd on 10/28/2020 05:03 pm
I downloaded the Starlink App for Android and if I point it north at a 45° angle there are tree branches in the way. If I point it almost straight up (about 85°) it's clear.
Will the dish have to point northwards or will almost vertical also work?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/28/2020 05:36 pm
Pricing for institutions...

Quote
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.

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.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-free-internet-texas-satellite-2020-10

$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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/28/2020 06:10 pm
Pricing for institutions...

Quote
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.

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.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-free-internet-texas-satellite-2020-10

$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.

The original source for the $300,000 figure is the Odessa American - a local newspaper.

Quote
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

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 the
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.”
https://www.ectorcountyisd.org//cms/lib/TX50000506/Centricity/Domain/2300/ECISD%20partnership%20to%20bring%20SpaceX%20satellite%20Internet%20to%20students2020.pdf

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/28/2020 06:19 pm
Pricing for institutions...

Quote
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.

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.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-free-internet-texas-satellite-2020-10

$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.

The original source for the $300,000 figure is the Odessa American - a local newspaper.

Quote
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

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 the
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.”
https://www.ectorcountyisd.org//cms/lib/TX50000506/Centricity/Domain/2300/ECISD%20partnership%20to%20bring%20SpaceX%20satellite%20Internet%20to%20students2020.pdf

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.
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.
 My old home office was in Odessa. That paper was a rare, good one back then. I haven't read it in a while.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 10/28/2020 07:03 pm
Pricing for institutions...

Quote
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.

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.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-free-internet-texas-satellite-2020-10

$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.

The original source for the $300,000 figure is the Odessa American - a local newspaper.

Quote
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

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 the
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.”
https://www.ectorcountyisd.org//cms/lib/TX50000506/Centricity/Domain/2300/ECISD%20partnership%20to%20bring%20SpaceX%20satellite%20Internet%20to%20students2020.pdf

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.

The Business Insider article is the first time I've seen it put as the $300000 being given to SpaceX. The article specifically states, for example, "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."

Public projects have a lot of overhead and weird funding calculations. We have no idea under what actual contract SpaceX got which amount of money. They might be donating the whole thing, they might be getting paid all of it for 36 months of service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/28/2020 08:09 pm
Quote
Trade Laws:

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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/

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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/28/2020 09:05 pm
Quote
Trade Laws:

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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 10/28/2020 09:13 pm
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.

That is  ... interesting.     

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 10/28/2020 10:02 pm
Quote
Trade Laws:

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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/

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).
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/28/2020 10:47 pm
Quote
Trade Laws:

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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/

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.

Don't sell it on eBay...

Quote
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/

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/28/2020 11:21 pm
Keep in mind this is still just the Beta terms of service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/29/2020 01:05 am
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/29/2020 02:25 am
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kdn on 10/29/2020 02:35 am
Keep in mind this is still just the Beta terms of service.

lol
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 10/29/2020 04:42 pm
Quote
Trade Laws:

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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/

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.

Don't sell it on eBay...

Quote
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/

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.

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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/29/2020 05:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/29/2020 06:02 pm
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.
Probably more than $10/month. That a 4 year payback. My $8/mo cable modem goes for under $100. One year payback.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/29/2020 06:10 pm
snip...
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.
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.
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?
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: haywoodfloyd on 10/29/2020 06:20 pm
Quote
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)

That's nothing new. Somebody could gain access to your wireless router and do the same thing. You are still responsible for the data usage.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/29/2020 06:27 pm
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.
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.
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.


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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/29/2020 06:32 pm
Are we just not going to mention that the Starlink terms of service require acknowledging the political autonomy of Mars?

“ 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)
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 10/29/2020 06:33 pm
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.

snip...
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.
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.
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?
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/29/2020 06:35 pm
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.
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.
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.


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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/29/2020 06:37 pm
Are we just not going to mention that the Starlink terms of service require acknowledging the political autonomy of Mars?

“ 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)
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.

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.  ???
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 10/29/2020 06:53 pm
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.
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.
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.
 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.

 I've wondered before if the ka band gateway antennas are marine types.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/29/2020 06:54 pm
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.

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?
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 10/29/2020 06:54 pm
Are we just not going to mention that the Starlink terms of service require acknowledging the political autonomy of Mars?

“ 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)
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.

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.  ???

Exactly! At some traffic point I can see them doing S&R, OST (or a successor treaty) enforcement for US operators, etc.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/29/2020 07:36 pm
Quote
Trade Laws:

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.
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/)

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.

Don't sell it on eBay...

Quote
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/ (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.
What are the chances that the McPizza box is obsolescent in two years?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/29/2020 07:43 pm
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.
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.
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.


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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 10/30/2020 08:38 pm
That is  ... interesting. 
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.
1) Antenna with Parabolic dish is more effective as FAR
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/30/2020 09:22 pm
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.

I don't think this is how things will be managed.  Instead of footprints that constantly move, you'll have fixed regions with satellites assigned to "hop" from region to region.  Multiple satellites can cover a region at the same time, with some kind of load-balancing between them.  Regions can range in size from whatever the minimum spot size is to as large as they can be and still be in range of the assigned satellite.

Quote
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.

I have a more complete description of how mobile stuff might work over here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51990.msg2148477#msg2148477), but the issue with mobile nodes is their addressing.  If their IP addresses don't correspond to the region they're in, then they can't be found by the internet at large.  But if their IP addresses are constantly being revoked and re-allocated in a new region, then their TCP connections get reset, which is annoying, albeit not fatal.  But the faster the mobile terminal is, the more annoying it becomes.  In a plane, it's pretty annoying.  In a spacecraft, it might be more than just annoying, rendering the system useless.

There's a way to fix this, akin to using a VPN, but it comes at a certain cost.

Quote
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.

One of the nice things about geographically defined regions, rather than sliding footprints, is that it's a lot easier to fix this problem.  If you have a city that's surrounded by sparse rural areas, you can allocate a small region for the city and assign a lot of birds to it, while the surrounding areas can be in a single footprint with many fewer birds.

I'm not sure if you would set prices like this, but it certainly makes it possible.  The major advantage is that you have much, much more flexibility in how you managed the correspondence between birds, regions, and the size of those regions.

Quote
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.

See above: same argument.  Just design your regions so that the load is appropriate, and then you can tariff things however you and/or the local government sees fit.  The key is to make the regions fit the load, not the other way around.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 10/30/2020 09:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/30/2020 09:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 10/30/2020 11:30 pm
That is  ... interesting. 
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.
1) Antenna with Parabolic dish is more effective as FAR
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 10/31/2020 12:15 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/31/2020 02:18 am
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.

I think this document (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-1237A1.pdf) shows the 2020 urban speed/price they needed to match, looks like price for 100Mbps/10Mbps/unlimited is $111.88, so their current beta price already satisfy the requirement.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/31/2020 03:28 am
Not mentioning Starlink by name but you can read between the lines, seems that Ajit Pai's attitude towards LEO constellation has softened: Interview | FCC Chairman Pai on RDOF, megaconstellations, debris rules and C-band auction (https://spacenews.com/regulating-space-qa-with-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai/)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/31/2020 07:16 am
twitter.com/auchenberg/status/1322394959064883200

Quote
Results 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/1322428850526105600

Quote
Latency will improve significantly soon. Bandwidth too.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 10/31/2020 07:34 am
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/1322394959064883200

Quote
Results 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/1322428850526105600

Quote
Latency will improve significantly soon. Bandwidth too.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 10/31/2020 11:36 am
That is  ... interesting. 
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.
1) Antenna with Parabolic dish is more effective as FAR
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.


//https://artes.esa.int/sites/default/files/06_1515_Shelley.pdf
2.4. Performance
The performance of the 430 x 430mm array shown in Figure 1 is summarised in Figure 3. The overall efficiency of the array is between 60% and 70%. This provides comparable G/T (>8dB/K) and superior Tx Gain (>30dBi) compared to a reflector antenna with an equivalent aperture. //

And cost
FAR 1 m x 1  m much more expensive as standart maritime 1 m parabolic dish from Cobham or Intellian or KVH
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tuna-Fish on 10/31/2020 12:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 10/31/2020 02:53 pm
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.

But doesn't the program set price caps for end user services?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/31/2020 04:20 pm
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/1322394959064883200

Quote
Results 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/1322428850526105600

Quote
Latency will improve significantly soon. Bandwidth too.

Pretty exciting to see user posts.  I love that they aren't advertising and so many people want the product.

More launches and more licenses in other countries.  2021 is going to be huge for Starlink and SpaceX revenue.  A few dozen F9 launches and maybe Starship starting to drop off a few hundred satellites at a time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 10/31/2020 04:47 pm
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.

Yes and no. The subsidies can be used to reduce costs to the consumer so as to expand service. It's usually in the form of subsidized equipment and install fees and maybe a free month or two.

That's how I got my first satellite installation back when AT&T used that round of funding (back in the early aughts, I think) to "provide broadband in rural areas."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 10/31/2020 06:02 pm
Twitter user https://twitter.com/AdvtrWithKramer has been posting some nice info about Starlink, from opening the box to realistic speed tests.

https://twitter.com/AdvtrWithKramer/status/1322591716059176960
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhbfHIrR9wA
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cuddihy on 11/01/2020 06:37 pm
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.
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.
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.
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 11/01/2020 08:47 pm
Twitter user https://twitter.com/AdvtrWithKramer has been posting some nice info about Starlink, from opening the box to realistic speed tests.

His comments on his YouTube channel also probably give a sense of how bad Internet is in some areas of the US, in case you live outside the US or have not ever lived in a dead zone in the US. There are a good number of people who will pay quite a bit of money to get anything better than 10-20mbps (or worse) download, but literally cannot get it for any reasonable amount of $$$. You can always pay a contractor to lay miles of fiber for you, wait months to get zoning approvals if you're in a particularly problematic area, but the average person won't be able to afford it (thousands to tens of thousands USD). This is why there's unquestionably a market here for Starlink.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3id_6F_SVbPgtLL7hOd4bg
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/01/2020 09:20 pm
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.

 There's a certain poster in here that I've never been able to make any sense whatsoever out of.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/02/2020 03:56 pm
https://www.businessinsider.com/starlink-internet-satellite-public-beta-speed-spacex-mbps-elon-musk-2020-11

Reading stories like this one got me thinking that SpaceX is going to come under enormous pressure to scale up Starlink for the bandwidth hungry masses.

175 down is a great speed.  It will be like going from being blind to having 20/20 vision.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/02/2020 04:20 pm
Yeah, there will be massive demand when people find out about it.

SpaceX is going to start having to throttle this once we get to around 1 million subscribers in the US. They're going to have to upgrade and launch more satellites as fast as they can. And, to maximize their investment, they're going to have to deploy to many countries at once.

1 million subscribers is approximately the break-even point for SpaceX as a company. 1 million subscribers at $1200/year should be enough to pay for their workforce and most costs.

At 100Mbps peak, the over-subscription ratio is aobut 100, equivalent to about 1Mbps (consider that Comcast's average usage per user is about 1Mbps... 308GB per month is about 1Mbps averaged over a month).

The US has a land area about 1/50th the Earth, but you can include some satellites over the ocean and Canada plus the optimized placement of the satellites to say the total capacity in the US is about 1/25th the total capacity of the network.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/02/2020 04:59 pm
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.

Expectations are going to need to be tempered again, I fear.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/02/2020 05:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 11/02/2020 05:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/02/2020 05:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/02/2020 06:38 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1323348268823314432

Quote
Several thousand more Starlink beta participation invitations going out this week
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 11/02/2020 06:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/02/2020 07:14 pm
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.

Yep to all of what you said.  Especially the global market, the potential revenue is enormous. 

Once Starship is flying reliably and Starlink v1.0 its easy to image Elon coming up with larger more capable spacecraft to roll out even more capacity and the cycle continues.

Starship is going to be very busy.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/02/2020 07:47 pm
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.
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.
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.
 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.
IR seeking missile sensors (not that far from microwave) run circles to zero onto max signal. Should be doable with phased array
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/02/2020 07:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/02/2020 08:01 pm
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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/02/2020 08:14 pm
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.
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.


EDIT: A good graph of this is the map of US Economic Exclusive Zones, which extends 370km out from US land, and encompasses more area (11 million km^2) than US land territory (9.8 million km^2). Some of these islands have no inhabitants, so that wouldn't count, but also this doesn't count territory claimed by other countries that would still be within range (and plus, 500km is greater than 370km). So, rough figures, I think 8% is approximately right, although Starlink will soon serve other nations like Canada, so some of that will need to be shared.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: r8ix on 11/02/2020 08:16 pm
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/02/2020 08:18 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1323348268823314432

Quote
Several thousand more Starlink beta participation invitations going out this week
SpaceX will hit 100,000 subscribers in no time (like, a few months), if they can manufacture the consumer hardware fast enough.

With online classes and work-from-home, people have never needed this more than now (except, like maybe 6 months ago).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/02/2020 08:24 pm
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.

Expectations are going to need to be tempered again, I fear.
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.


A sat immediately over NYC can serve maritime and air. It can reach well into the boonies of northeastern PA and New England. Unless I'm seriously mistaken everybody in NYC and all the rest of the high density eastern seaboard has options (I don't count GEO sats as an option).


There is too much low hanging fruit to bother with the high stuff - for now.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/02/2020 08:40 pm
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.
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.


Again betting on the man and his track record, it will be called v1+ or v1augmented or something equally awkward, but not v1.1. No guesses on bandwidth but probably not more than a 50-100 percent increase.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/02/2020 09:00 pm
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/1323360818336092167

Quote
Canada and Norway are next after we get US out of early beta!

That has nothing to do with Starlink Beta

Anyways, probably the most comprehensive overview I have seen of the equipment and speed testing. Location is Washington.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya2PO4wekn0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-oP3Qnyx4o

His average is in the 50s which is lower than the average for October of 79.5 megabits/second reported by PCMag[1] and closer to the average for ViaSat at 24.75 megabits/second. Could be just peculiar to him or there are network effects occuring as more starlink beta kits get deployed.

[1]https://www.pcmag.com/news/tested-spacexs-starlink-satellite-internet-service-is-fast-but-itll-cost
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 11/02/2020 09:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/02/2020 09:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/02/2020 09:26 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/02/2020 09:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 11/02/2020 09:48 pm
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.

For some uses, cost is not the only consideration, latency is important.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 11/02/2020 09:50 pm
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.
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/
So there is every reason SX value could shoot up further NOW as Starlink begins to deploy assuming it generally goes well. So IMO 
Quote
I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if SpaceX is worth $400B 10 years from now
TWO years from now! (my strikethrough!)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/02/2020 10:02 pm
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.

Could be true as I haven't done a full survey of all the recent GEO satellites and their orbit raising behavior, but the context of the conversation was ViaSat 3 which will be all electric across all 3 satellites. ViaSat 2 did partial chemical orbit raising to GEO and partial electric.

Quote
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.

We will use fully electric propulsion for all of our ViaSat-3 satellites.
https://corpblog.viasat.com/launch-partners-all-in-place-for-three-viasat-3-satellites/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 11/02/2020 10:25 pm
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).
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/02/2020 10:44 pm
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/02/2020 11:21 pm
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.

Viasat is certainly going to lose me to Starlink, if what I have seen so far continues.

But I was not talking numbers of customers when I was talking competing with cable. I was talking performance, and I still think that is so. Once the system rolls out there will have to be caps or some method of moderating throughput. There are still rain and snow issues, and the population density issue is still a factor. Right now people are testing in an underutilized network that is not anywhere close to being saturated by users.

As for the bigger/better/more satellites they launch in however many years, sure, they might compete with fiber itself for all I know. But right now Starlink is running against Viasat and Hughsnet and crappy DSL, and that is the competition, and I think even when the network is stressed they will still beat those guys.

And as always, looking forward to testing this out for myself as soon as they can get service down here at the 35th parallel.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/02/2020 11:36 pm
I had cable for a while, and it ALSO cut out when it rained. Speeds were worse than Starlink, too.

So again, I think Starlink can and will compete with cable directly. Fiber is still better, but Starlink can provide indirect competition by giving customers a second or third option in case their fiber provider tries to engage in rent-seeking.

I agree that likely Starlink on a fundamental level is slightly too expensive to compete with cable on a per-GB cost basis at the moment (GSO sat internet is about $3/GB for the consumer, about the same as 4G or 5G in the US, but cable internet is about $0.30/GB at least based on average usage, although caps aren't enforced until like 1TB or so), but that may change when they're launching it with Starship and can afford to upgrade it, and it may be somewhat irrelevant at first because the network won't be saturated enough to justify enforcing data caps.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/02/2020 11:41 pm
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.

Starlink is going to make so much money, it's going to be ridiculous.

Especially when combined with the COVID-initiated work(and school)-from-home thing and the emptying of the expensive cities for cheaper rural towns (for those who can work from home). I think Morgan Stanley's $100B potential valuation for SpaceX is likely very conservative at this point. $1 trillion is possible if everything works well (fully and rapidly reusable Starship, sat-to-sat laser comms, VLEO, continual expansion and upgrading of the satellites, global reach, etc).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 11/03/2020 01:23 am
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_newsletter

Quote
What 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"

Complex organic molecules like CFCs will not survive reentry. Starlinks are likely made almost entirely of aluminum, silicon, and carbon, with traces of heavier elements, mostly metals. So we need to consider the impact of adding a very small amount of stuff like AlO2, SiO2, and CO2 to the stratosphere. Probably a bit of NOx as well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jcc on 11/03/2020 01:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/03/2020 01:45 am
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.

Correct, resale of services requires a separate agreement.

Quote
No Resale:

You may not resell access to the Services to others as a stand-alone service, unless agreed to in a separate agreement with SpaceX.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_of_service/f

People will be people though. There was an article today from Ars Technica about a guy mounting it to his car and maybe/probably breaking the Terms of Service. Now, are there loopholes in that language? Maybe. Bundling with rent isn't a standalone internet service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 11/03/2020 06:00 am
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.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/03/2020 07:09 am
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.

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 HughesNet will be used 3 sats  in Ka band SPACEWAY 3 (95° W), EchoStar 17 (107.1° W), EchoStar 19 (97.1° W)
for ViaSat  - ViaSat 1 (140 Gbit) and ViaSat 2 (300 Gbit)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/03/2020 10:14 am
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.

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 HughesNet will be used 3 sats  in Ka band SPACEWAY 3 (95° W), EchoStar 17 (107.1° W), EchoStar 19 (97.1° W)
for ViaSat  - ViaSat 1 (140 Gbit) and ViaSat 2 (300 Gbit)

I think ViaSat also owns WildBlue-1, but it's pretty old, not sure about its capacity.

For user size, from ViaSat FY21 Q1 report (http://investors.viasat.com/static-files/7d90c9cb-e16c-4c1a-bc6b-e08de6e39be6), they have 599,000 US subscribers with ARPU (average revenue per user) of over $99. I assume these subscribers only use a fraction of the total bandwidth since it didn't include their government/commercial/foreign users.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/03/2020 10:25 am
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.

I think this topic would be better discussed in the SpaceX Section Realignment and Thread Housekeeping - Upcoming (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45436.0) thread
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/04/2020 02:48 pm
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?

Quote
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.”
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/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/04/2020 05:20 pm
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?

Quote
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.”
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 11/04/2020 05:22 pm
Assuming there is a ground station "close" to you then you should be golden!

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?

Quote
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.”
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/04/2020 06:15 pm
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?

Quote
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.”
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.
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/04/2020 08:39 pm
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?

Quote
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.”
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.
 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.

Or even how it handles the difference in leaf cover from summer to winter. Or winds blowing limbs around.

Unfortunately the way the house is positioned in the yard gives a much better view of the south, which I know at least initially won't give access to as many satellites at once. But I am willing to go pretty high with a pole if I have to.

Nice thing about the Starlink antenna is that it looks like it will be pretty easy to temporarily place in different places to check out reception. Rather different than a dish to be sure.

I may hold of on that pole, now I think about it, and check it closer to ground level first.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tuna-Fish on 11/05/2020 09:54 am
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.

The satellites spend a lot more of their time near latitude of their inclination than they spend near the equator. This almost doubles the time they are over the US.

(For an intuitive understanding of this, consider a sine curve. It goes "almost horizontally" near it's peaks, spending a relatively long time in a narrow band of "latitude", and then goes at near 45 degree angle while it's crossing zero, so it zips past "low latitudes" relatively fast. Mid-inclined satellite orbits are similar.)

IIRC the last time this was discussed, the result was that using the minimum angle of 25 degrees, a Starlink satellite is reachable from the US or southern Canada a hair less than 1/12th of the time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/05/2020 02:40 pm
You know, you can calculate a minimum cost per GB for Starlink (and compare it to other things, like 4G/5G, cable, fiber, DSL, GSO satellite) as a function of capacity factor (which includes both the altitude of the satellite, angle to the satellite, and distribution of customers around the globe as well as inclination distribution of the satellites), launch cost per kg, hardware cost per kg, and throughput per kg.

Think I might start a new thread. Could give us some idea of whether or how Starlink can compete with various options. (Latency also being a factor that determines value.)

EDIT: Here's the thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52254.msg2150207#msg2150207
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 11/05/2020 03:24 pm
Can Starlink really be compared to cable?  It costs probably $5-$10 per foot to install cable.  I retired 8 years ago from a gas company and it cost us at least $5 a foot to install 2" plastic gas pipe.  More in rocky areas. 

I say this because would cost $26,400 to run a mile of cable just to get one customer in a rural area.  Not a good return on investment.  What is cable's profit after paying for the cable channels and streaming costs?  Also in towns and cities, cable sometimes installs on power and telephone poles which is far cheaper than digging. This is why cable companies want government money to install cable in rural areas and SpaceX is trying to get some of this money for their satellite launches.

How many customers can use one satellite over a given area?  SpaceX's cost is about the same as other satellite operators that operate at way lower speed.     
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/05/2020 05:20 pm
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.

For some uses, cost is not the only consideration, latency is important.
All users who have ever used geo for phone service.
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/05/2020 06:14 pm
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.

For some uses, cost is not the only consideration, latency is important.
All users who have ever used geo for phone service.
 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.

We maintain a landline here at about $45 a month since we have pretty much zero cellular connectivity for voice. If I can do some sort of phone relay through Starlink I will have that cut off pronto and save that $45.

And AT&T will be just as happy, since they have allowed the lines to degrade to the point that said landline's service is practically useless now anyway. Fun aside: Since the recent hurricane knocked down some power poles (and the utility company hasn't gotten around to clearing them up after reconnecting power) out of curiosity I flipped open one of the phone line junction boxes that was now reachable and watched the ants pour out of it.

I will be very happy to not give AT&T another penny ever again.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/06/2020 09:30 pm
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?

3) Given the answers to 1) and 2), and what we know of the Starlink phased-array transceivers, what is a good estimate for the maximum viable spot size, given the maximum bitrates they're advertising?  Notice that I was careful not to say "bandwidth" here, although bandwidth, bitrate, power, and throughput are all interrelated.  I want to know how big the spot can be for a single terminal within it to receive ~100Mbps, given a transceiver that's fairly lightly loaded.

The answers to these questions have a fairly profound impact on the addressing architecture of Starlink.  If a terminal can be located in a region that's 100-500km wide, where each transceiver selects a fixed geographical spot and then slews only enough to keep the beam focused on that fixed spot until it "hops" to a new one that's "rising" while the old one "sets", then routing is quite efficient.  On the other hand, for a "micro-spot" that has to be slewed all over the place to service a number of different locations at the same time, the addressing (and routing architecture) are substantially different.

I am not an RF geek.  A little help?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/06/2020 10:11 pm
Phased  arrays can switch basically instantly, but there’s probably processing overhead for attempting to switch on a packet by packet basis like that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/06/2020 10:56 pm
Phased  arrays can switch basically instantly, but there’s probably processing overhead for attempting to switch on a packet by packet basis like that.

How long would it take the ground station to detect a stable enough carrier to begin decoding a frame?  (I suspect that this question is a bit like asking how long the packet preamble and inter-frame gap would have to be.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/07/2020 03:59 pm
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?

1) StarLink has  5 fixed channel in Ku from sat to UT
Downlink/Uplink
240/60 MHz
120/30 MHz
60/15 MHz
30/???
15/1  MHz (beacon ???)
 
2)  50..100 ms
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/07/2020 04:19 pm
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,

If we base on  half  power bandwidth angle  for antenna on satellite  the same as for UT
3.5...5.5 degrees  we have beam diametr from 33 to 222 km (accordance my calculation)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/07/2020 06:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: groknull on 11/07/2020 06:58 pm
<snip>
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.)
General FYI for people in the USA with HOAs...

The Starlink user terminal should qualify under FCC OTARD for some protection against HOA restrictions.
https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/installing-consumer-owned-antennas-and-satellite-dishes

While Over The Air Reception Device (OTARD) might sound like receive only, the ruling does include fixed wireless for internet.  Fixed meaning to a fixed location.  Wireless including signals to and from towers or satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/07/2020 07:19 pm
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. 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 11/07/2020 07:25 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/07/2020 07:31 pm
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.

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.
StarLink terminal has  heater  power is 180 W . it is enough for snow..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/07/2020 07:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/07/2020 09:05 pm
StarLink terminal has  heater  power is 180 W . it is enough for snow..
How are they doing that with a POE powered dish?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 11/07/2020 09:23 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/07/2020 09:28 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 11/07/2020 09:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ulm_atms on 11/07/2020 10:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SteveU on 11/07/2020 11:44 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/08/2020 07:17 am
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?

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/08/2020 07:20 am
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.

Hmm.  The image is of an ID plate on the dish, not on the power supply.  But you're right that there are only two PoE spigots on the power supply.

Even using 4-pair Type 4 PPoE++, you're only supposed to get 57V @ 433 mA per each of 4 pairs.    The plate says 56V @ 1.6A x2, which is pretty close--except for the x2 part.

I'm starting to question the 180W heater.  Where did that number come from?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/08/2020 04:07 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SteveU on 11/08/2020 04:43 pm
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?

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?
Yeah-can’t even blame autocorrect!  :o
Either way - no way there’s a 180W heater.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 11/08/2020 05:15 pm
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/08/2020 05:38 pm
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!

You may already be aware but they've got an approved ground station already covering much of that if the other regulatory issues aren't an impediment.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1318892393270251520
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/08/2020 08:03 pm
I'm starting to question the 180W heater.  Where did that number come from?

Sorry...
 It`s my mistake.. I misunderstood the person from reddit..
:-(
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 11/08/2020 09:05 pm
There's a interesting and relavent poll over here --->

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52275.0

please drop by and tell everyone if you are using/interested/not-interested in the Starlink service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 11/09/2020 11:47 am

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.

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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/09/2020 02:53 pm
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.
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.
 Heaters on flat dishes pointed almost straight up, I'm not too sure of. rdavis9's scheme might work if the dish can tilt that far.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/09/2020 03:03 pm

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?
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.
 What is the licensed output of the user terminals?
 A few Praying Mantises should take care of the moths.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/11/2020 04:16 am
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1326173156848111616

Quote
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

Quote
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."

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1326175675691241474

Quote
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

Quote
Hofeller: "Microsoft has proven to be a good partner in that regard." $MSFT

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1326178079245553667

Quote
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

Quote
Hofeller added that SpaceX will adjust Starlink's pricing "as necessary to individual markets."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/12/2020 07:26 pm
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.

Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErsmWETqgKw

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 11/12/2020 07:55 pm
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.
...
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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/12/2020 08:10 pm
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.

Anyhoo, Ars posted an update story:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/11/spacex-starlink-has-some-hiccups-as-expected-but-users-are-impressed/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jun8k on 11/15/2020 01:33 pm
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/15/2020 04:43 pm
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 can't answer the tech question, but I can say Welcome to the forum and thanks for the update.

I notice that your location is listed as London. Where are you using the Starlink?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/15/2020 04:50 pm
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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/15/2020 05:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 11/15/2020 05:12 pm
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.
Why would it affect uptime?

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/15/2020 05:54 pm
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:

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?
For transmitting, likely possible.  For receiving, likely not.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: eriblo on 11/15/2020 06:57 pm
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.
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...

*This is the reason why the first little pocket of your dinner that melts in the microwave gets surface-of-the-Sun hot while the rest is still in deep freeze.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/15/2020 08:11 pm
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:

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?
For transmitting, likely possible.  For receiving, likely not.

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.
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.


The bird would have a more difficult job. 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.


Except for newly arrived user terminals the bird will know where it's targets are. If we look at the old Arcnet and Token Ring topologies we see deterministic approaches to using the datalink layer to apportion bandwidth. I suspect the ethernet model is not going to fit and as subscriptions increase each beam might have to do some time sharing. Give attention to one customer for a slice, then do a scan of the other UT's on that beam looking for either an 'I need to transmit' signal or internal buffers with data to be sent.


StarLink is a near complete rewrite of the datalink problem. Historically, time slots at this level are not arcane. My guess is that what StarLink does at the physical and datalink layers will be the secret sauce.


This is best discussed over in the protocols thread. PM me or post if you'd like to discuss this further over there.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jun8k on 11/15/2020 08:37 pm
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.
Why would it affect uptime?

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/15/2020 09:31 pm
Do we know how many different lobes (beams) the user terminals can receive simultaneously?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 11/15/2020 10:43 pm
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.
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.

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jun8k on 11/15/2020 11:05 pm
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.
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.

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.

Good to know, thanks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jun8k on 11/16/2020 11:57 am
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.
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.

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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: eriblo on 11/16/2020 02:58 pm
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/16/2020 04:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: groundbound on 11/16/2020 06:56 pm
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.

ISTM you have enough cryogenic infrastructure near your location to make the test feasible.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/16/2020 08:14 pm
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.
Why would it affect uptime?

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/16/2020 10:58 pm
So, I graphed some data from reddit[1] linking to speedtest.net's results database. There appears to be some relatively minor response to load as the beta rolled out over the last couple weeks. I also wrote a rudimentary web indexer that looked for other starlink results, but it is far too slow (~10,000 checks per hour, when maybe 1 out of a million internet connections are starlink at the moment).

[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/i9w09n/list_of_confirmed_starlink_speed_tests/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/17/2020 07:28 pm
There is anecdotal evidence that either rain and snow has an effect on the connection

Sorry,  but snow and ice on dish are absolutely another thing as water!!!

Dielectric constant  for ice and snow is about 3  (for all another material  it is  low as 10),

but for water  Dielectric constant  is 80!!!!

Dry snow  is nothing!!  But 2 mm water on dish can be very serios problem for  SNR (=Eb/No)  for 11/14 GHz
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/17/2020 07:33 pm
Is it possible to shrink the size of the antenna for a minimum connection speed of 1mpbs dl?
Thanks!

if you reduce the size of the antenna, then you will need a much larger frequency band on the satellite to transmit information at the same speed from a business point of view, you will have to pay 2 or more times more for each transmitted gigabyte
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/17/2020 07:40 pm
Do we know how many different lobes (beams) the user terminals can receive simultaneously?

 One beam.
It`s frequency band is 240 MHz 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/17/2020 07:46 pm
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.

it is very simple. On a satellite there is a beacon (narrow signal with a fixed frequency for all satellites) on which short bursts of initial information are transmitted. The terminal, when connected to the network, begins to scan the entire sky at this frequency until it receives a beacon signal with the system boot file
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/18/2020 01:58 pm
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.

The issue is whether control stuff can be sent to the terminals in a separate channel, out-of-band with downlinked data.  I suspect that gathering how much data the terminal needs to send, and then downlinking the slot in which to send it, makes more sense than allocated fixed slots for transmit, which won't have very good spectral efficiency.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/18/2020 08:04 pm

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/)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/18/2020 08:39 pm
https://twitter.com/cmdr_hadfield/status/1329171394190565376

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/18/2020 11:32 pm

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/)

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 11/19/2020 05:37 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 11/19/2020 05:46 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/19/2020 06:54 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/19/2020 01:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 11/19/2020 02:22 pm
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, this:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1328770804222468097?s=21

If Starship comes even remotely close to the above cost target, they can launch cost effectively even if only a small number of satellites are on board- if they have to.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/19/2020 02:54 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 11/19/2020 04:45 pm
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 are probably already limited more more by bandwidth than by satellite visibility. Even with only 800 satellites on orbit, most of the latitudes where the beta is available can always see more than 1 satellite. So the gap just puts more load on the neighboring satellites, and the users in the area under the gap may experience a temporary reduction in bandwidth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/19/2020 05:17 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/19/2020 05:27 pm
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...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o5SLokjdMw

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/19/2020 05:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: MTom on 11/19/2020 06:39 pm
https://twitter.com/vincent13031925/status/1329220965520162816?s=20

Quote
SpaceX seeks FCC permission to test Starlink Internet on Gulfstream Jets
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/19/2020 06:53 pm
https://twitter.com/vincent13031925/status/1329220965520162816?s=20

Quote
SpaceX seeks FCC permission to test Starlink Internet on Gulfstream Jets

Elon's plane?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/19/2020 07:58 pm
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.

LMAO!!!  When you would buy Starlink again knowing what you know, well that's sort of the definition of things YOU CAN STAND.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/19/2020 08:25 pm
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) 
 In August 2020 SpaceX send to FCC  file for GW
 Gaffney https://fcc.report/IBFS/SES-REG-INTR2020-02461/2695552


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 11/19/2020 10:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: launchwatcher on 11/19/2020 10:30 pm
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.
Doesn't seem like it would be hard to leave a few hot spare satellites in the plane drift altitudes spaced every few planes.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/20/2020 12:09 am
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.

Thanks for the vid.

It did answer my question (with one data point, but still an answer) that dropped connections are an issue right now.

But the video did make me envision this exchange:

SpaceX: We don't have the initial shell totally filled out yet plus we are still tweaking our network, expect dropped connections.
Youtuber: I'm getting a lot of dropped connections. I hate that.

What I am "concerned" about of course is if said dropped connections persist even with a good sky view and after they have enough sats up to keep several in view all the time. If dropped connections persist after that time it is going to be a problem. I have confidence that SpaceX can solve the problem, but we'll still have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/20/2020 06:31 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/20/2020 06:47 pm
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.
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?


First responders in the back woods have unique and difficult but not insurmountable hookup problems. Can they do it passively and still be timely?


I see your point about rogue malfunctions. Just trying to understand the workarounds.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/21/2020 02:01 pm
A noon Pacific/3:00 Eastern Starlink engineer AMA on subreddit r/Starlink.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jybmgn/we_are_the_starlink_team_ask_us_anything/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/21/2020 02:28 pm
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1330168092652138501

Quote
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/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: archae86 on 11/21/2020 08:25 pm
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.

Only slightly less surprising to me, but perhaps expected here, was that in keeping with an approach of keeping ground support overhead low, they tell each satellite the intended orbital slot, and onboard computation on the satellite commands the detailed maneuvering to get there.  I guess I should not be surprised, as they long ago told us the satellite itself does final collision avoidance computation and maneuvering commands, but I am surprised.  I spent twelve years of my life living two miles from the Blue Cube (aka Onizuka Air Force Station), and I'm pretty sure those folks had an enormously higher ratio of ground support to birds.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/21/2020 09:04 pm
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.

*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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/21/2020 09:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/21/2020 11:57 pm
Due to the number of CPUs on each sat they definitely have the capability to quickly compute orbital maneuvering commands data sets. Each sat has several 100GFLOPS computational capability and several 100GIPS as well. The equivalent of several 10s to 100s of what used to be called supercomputers worth of capability. Each sat has more computational capability than most of the other companies' sat ground support centers!!

So I am not surprised.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 11/22/2020 01:42 am
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.

A lot of customers in rural America would be excited to get 25 Mbs.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/22/2020 02:00 am

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

200 mbps or higher is exceptionally rare. Out of 4000-5000 tests known between testmy.net and speedtest.net, that apparently has only occurred twice. Neither is the occasional Viasat test at 125 mbps+ really representative of the service either. Average speeds are what you should be measuring and that is about 53.7 mbps for November according to testmy.net which is the low end of what they were quoting in their email.

https://testmy.net/hoststats/spacex_starlink
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/22/2020 02:49 am
https://www.reddit.com/user/DishyMcFlatface/comments/?sort=new

Also it sounds like ISL is still work in progress, so may be a while before it's deployed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/22/2020 05:43 am
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.
Doesn't seem like it would be hard to leave a few hot spare satellites in the plane drift altitudes spaced every few planes.



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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: tbellman on 11/22/2020 12:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 11/22/2020 12:20 pm
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.

This can be solved with a few simple approximations: The Earths surface divided by the initial 1500 sat constellation is 340000km˛, or 583˛ km˛. Looking up for 500km at a 45° elevation angle, you can see a circle with diameter 1000km. So without taking out our calculator and some harsh rounding down of pi, we can assume that the initial constellation will have three satellites in view any time, and even more in reality since they only overfly part of Earths surface and clump at 53°.

That's one fact that is also overlooked when people talk about capacity - with phased arrays you don't have one geographical region being served by one satellite, by the time they have 12000 up there a single point on Earth could have as many as 30 simultaneous data streams in different directions.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DreamyPickle on 11/22/2020 02:29 pm
https://www.reddit.com/user/DishyMcFlatface/comments/?sort=new
Also 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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: launchwatcher on 11/22/2020 02:47 pm
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).

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/ ; 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..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Michael S on 11/23/2020 03:50 am
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}
           
     
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/23/2020 05:02 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 11/23/2020 05:12 am
https://www.reddit.com/user/DishyMcFlatface/comments/?sort=new
Also 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?

One can look at the big picture .. that is, which company is the first to market that captures the spectrum, the initial users, and the mind share.   

To give just one example:  Imagine you are the first to engage the DOD for a $x billion dollar contract to provide simple, remote, very high bandwidth, low latency connectivity in the polar regions
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/23/2020 05:56 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/23/2020 06:30 am
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.

CSMA also requires that you can receive everything that everybody else is transmitting.  With narrowbeams, you can't.

I agree that it has to be some arcane time slot scheme.  How the slots are synchronized will be very interesting.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jketch on 11/23/2020 06:42 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/23/2020 07:28 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/24/2020 04:21 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/24/2020 04:27 pm

$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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/24/2020 04:33 pm

$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
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/24/2020 04:48 pm
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
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/24/2020 05:04 pm
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.

*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)
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.


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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/24/2020 05:19 pm
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.

*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)
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.


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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/24/2020 06:20 pm
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..
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.


If one plane experiences higher than expected mortality either adjacent planes pick up the load, that plane becomes a target for early replacement, or some combination.


Emergency Starlink insertion might be a reason for an SX OTV. CH4/O2 pressure fed and capable of refueling. Nothing they are not already working on.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/24/2020 06:52 pm
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}
           
   


Nicely done. Figure taxes are added after the  $500 (not $600 I think) but then deduct for shipping and handling (if not an add on cost) so maybe close to a wash.


Order processing will be fairly automated which means computers & IT, customer service, launch planning, ground transport, etc. I'd deduct 10% off the top for this, not a fixed number.


Overhead and development need to be kept separate. Overhead is an expenditure and development is a capital expense. Took me a long time to figure the logic here. Normal expenditure is stuff that is here and gone. Capital is the physical infrastructure that persists over time.


I'd peg launch cost, including occasional booster loss, at more like $20-25m, but nobody except SX knows for sure.


Every startup runs these types of numbers and every start up and their backers wonder how accurate they are, and how they'll change over time. Sat costs (capital expenditure) might go down over time, but up with technology additions. Launch costs will (hopefully) go down when SS comes on line. Overhead percentage might drop with a larger and hopefully stable user base.


Nice first hack for a napkin.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: theinternetftw on 11/24/2020 08:25 pm
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/24/2020 08:25 pm
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
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.  :D
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/24/2020 08:46 pm

$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)
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.


The President of HughesNet would be cutting his own throat if he said that Elon is about to eat his lunch - even if he thought this to be true.


I've no idea what it costs to build a UT. I expect it is quite a bit more than than $499. Betting on the man rather than conventional wisdom, I expect the costs to drop precipitously as experience and both manufacturing and purchasing economies of  scale kick in. In a small sense it's a loss leader. In a larger scale sense it's building the customer base that will generate the volumes allowing the costs to drop.   
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 11/25/2020 05:59 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 11/25/2020 01:45 pm


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.

I was trying to find out how much worst drag was at 380km versus 540km.
I came up with 24 times worst.

This web site "tries" to tell you the density in LEO. BTW not an easy thing to do.

https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/modelweb/models/msis_vitmo.php

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!?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 11/25/2020 03:47 pm


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!?
You can get a fair chunk of that back by configuring drifting satellite to reduce frontal area.

Given the flatness of the satellites I'd guess a reduction of drag by a factor of 10 could be possible.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tuna-Fish on 11/26/2020 11:02 am
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?

Depends on how long they think they will need for ISLs to be operational. They 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 11/26/2020 02:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/26/2020 02:28 pm
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? I think Quintillion is done with the Alaskan phase of their fiber.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/28/2020 10:09 pm
Are they planning on higher inclination launches after the initial 1440 sat constellation?

My impression was that they were asking for expedited approval of the parts of the modification dealing with some of the polar shells.  Note that the only modification that's actually been approved is moving 32 planes @ 50 sats/plane in 1150 x 1150 x 53 to 72 planes @ 22 sats/plane in 550 x 500 x 53.  Everything else is still pending--and even the 550 x 550 x 53 approval has a second modification request outstanding to move it to 540 x 540 x 53.2.

If they got a modification approval on 4 planes @ 43/plane in 560x560x97.6, I'd expect them to launch those concurrently with filling out the 53ş shell.  I'm kinda wondering if Vandy has been begging for work, and SpaceX saw an opportunity to get Space Force to put the arm on the FCC.

Quote
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?

Hi, I'm TRM, and I'll be your information sherpa for this evening.  940.7km radius @ 25ş elevation (https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-MOD-20181108-00083/1569860.pdf)  (Fig. A.3.1-1)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: matthewkantar on 11/29/2020 02:30 am
Will this guy be banned from ever owning a Starlink ground station?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOmdQnIlnRo

Should this be in the equipment thread?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: theinternetftw on 11/29/2020 04:34 am
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.

A year? 120 / 0.385 ~= 311 days. That'd leave you with the drift finished sometime in early November, if you started in January.

But you shouldn't start in January. By January, all the still-drifting L1 sats (which launched in November) had already drifted some of that 120 degrees.  And some of that drifting was at 350km, not 380km, as that was the original planned drift altitude.

After this, I figured I'd write a script to check the actual data.  Here are those numbers, there's a surprising amount of variation. And you're right that my eyeballed 0.385 is an undershoot, off by about five percent.

STARLINK-1029 Average RAAN Drift Speed:
(skipped November, not at drift alt, and skipped December and January, which had data problems)
2020-02: 0.416 deg/day
2020-03: 0.390 deg/day
2020-04: 0.391 deg/day
2020-05: 0.416 deg/day
2020-06: 0.413 deg/day
2020-07: 0.394 deg/day
2020-08: 0.403 deg/day
(avg of avgs: 0.403 - this seems to match other sats quite well)

(*One interesting bit is that S-1029 could have been the test satellite for the new drift altitude, as it was hanging out around there long before any of the other launches adjusted to 380.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 11/29/2020 05:01 am
 I wonder if they'd consider a relay without a good ground 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/29/2020 05:30 am
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.

Oh, absolutely.  If you can propagate a packet through successive ground-sat-ground-sat bounces, that's perfectly good connectivity, and the latency frankly will be pretty decent.  The only requirement is that you eventually be able to reach a gateway with a terrestrial border connection.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/29/2020 04:37 pm
Will this guy be banned from ever owning a Starlink ground station?

...



I doubt it, although he's probably out of the beta program.

SpaceX has been pretty chill so far with this type of abuse, even declining to hassle folks that are deliberately moving their antenna around -- though they are warning them that their service could get pretty bad if they move outside of a supported cell.

But the fact is (IMO) that they knew teardowns were going to happen, and they didn't release until they were ready to have people poking inside.

And ff they follow the path Tesla took Elon might even pay serious attention to engineering suggestions coming from "Teardowners" for future improvements.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/29/2020 07:02 pm
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.

You are right that this is how moderm COTM (Communication on the move) VSAT works. It has ACU (Antenna Control Unit) in which you save in advance the frequency and name of the satellite (= its coordinates), what you will use...
 But Starlink hasn`t  satellite with forever fixed coordinates
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/29/2020 07:12 pm
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.  :D
Sorry, I am not Gongora, but I saw in the FCC file that user terminal can work with 15 MHz carrier..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/30/2020 08:22 pm
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.  :D
Sorry, 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:

Quote
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.

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.


 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 12/01/2020 04:43 am
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 12/01/2020 04:57 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/01/2020 07:40 am
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

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%
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 12/01/2020 09:40 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/02/2020 08:41 pm
Love this

https://twitter.com/brendan2908/status/1334246432677588992

Quote
#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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 12/03/2020 07:54 pm
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).
Yup. If you could get rid of the users the system would run so much smoother. Oh wait, that would mean... Never mind 8)


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.


This scenario might also happen with thunderous midwest squall lines or the neighborhood high school geek doing EMP experiments, in addition to power outages. Or even your maple tree leading leafing out after your winter UT install.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 12/03/2020 08:24 pm
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%
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.


I love that Aloha name. It fits perfectly for initial hookup. Is it an acronym?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 12/03/2020 08:30 pm
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.
Or, terminator cap? What's a terminator cap? I just thought it would make a cool ear ring.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 12/03/2020 10:13 pm
I'm not sure it's wise to do a mix of time slice and collision. Has this ever been done?

Slotted ALOHA is an example.

Quote
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.

This isn't really collision detection.  It's simply a packet exchange protocol that recognizes that it's poor form to handle a response timeout by immediately re-sending the request.  There are a whole bunch of UDP-based protocols that use this strategy.  They use it for congestion management--often to mitigate the post-power-fail problem--but it's the same principle.

Quote
I love that Aloha name. It fits perfectly for initial hookup. Is it an acronym?

Additive Links On-line Hawaii Area.

Quote
Or, terminator cap? What's a terminator cap? I just thought it would make a cool ear ring.

If you don't put the terminator cap on, the bits will fall out onto your desk and make a big mess behind your computer, so don't take it off.

A better strategy:  Don't put the least tech-savvy person in your office at the end of the line.  Instead, put the guy who knows how to use the TDR tester there.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jansen on 12/10/2020 11:33 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: hplan on 12/10/2020 11:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/10/2020 01:08 pm
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: baldusi on 12/10/2020 01:26 pm
They must have been working on v1.1 and v2.0 satellites. Anybody with experience in releases, knows that no matter how much QA and internal testing you do, beta test will discover an order of magnitude more issues. And general release another one. Huge amounts of normies tend to cover corner cases and "who could have thought of doing that?!" that no sane person would have thought, no matter how devious.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jansen on 12/10/2020 01:27 pm
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.

Any new technologies would be incrementally added, like the sunshade.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: smoliarm on 12/10/2020 02:15 pm
I don’t believe SpaceX would hold off on launches with such a huge backlog.
- what do you mean by "backlog" - in this case?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 12/10/2020 02:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jakusb on 12/10/2020 05:09 pm
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. ;)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/10/2020 05:33 pm
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. ;)

That but also booster and recovery vessel availability.  They don't exactly have ready boosters just laying around, otherwise more Starlinks would be getting rides.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/10/2020 06:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/10/2020 06:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jakusb on 12/10/2020 08:10 pm
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.
Don’t they have a third ASDS almost ready?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/10/2020 08:35 pm
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.
What if the pause is for getting ready to launch them on Starship on early orbital flights...

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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 12/10/2020 08:38 pm
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.
What if the pause is for getting ready to launch them on Starship on early orbital flights...

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.)

I lost track of whether they are at a point where FCC approval of pending filings is necessary at this time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Joffan on 12/10/2020 09:04 pm

Flights out of VAFB would be pretty cool.  Need another ASDS, but that's just money.

There might be a case for launching a smaller set of satellites from Vandenberg to allow land landing, especially since there are fewer satellites (50) per polar orbit. Could maybe launch into 2 planes @ 25 each time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/11/2020 02:13 am
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 12/11/2020 06:28 am
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).

However, all the modification requests have been in for quite a while.  I'd think that the FCC will either have to fish or cut bait on them pretty soon.

BTW, there's also a mod to the mod that actually got granted, which takes the whole current shell from 550km to 540km, and slightly changes the inclination.  It'll be interesting to see if they do that with the birds currently on-orbit, or with a replacement set.  No clue how you deal with the FCC to say, "You know that mod that we requested that you just granted?  Could we just hold off on that particular one for a year or two?"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jansen on 12/11/2020 11:09 am
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.
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. ;)

There is a backlog of at least 720 Starlink satellites awaiting launch.

The response is to the original, crossposted here:

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 12/11/2020 07:19 pm
Feedback from the first installation in Canada:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61PNQQ1vFBw&feature=emb_logo
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/12/2020 08:01 pm
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.

I agree that from the point of view of Starlink`s  network  deployment, the stop does not make any sense, more satellites are needed to provide service in the south (Florida, Texas, etc). Testing and upgrading of terminals and gateways has nothing to do with new satellites at all.

But there is one, but a very significant reason why this (a decrease in launch rates for Starlink ) is possible.
It  is MONEY.
SpaceX  in 2020, launched very few commercial sats. But SpaceX is currently running at least 6  investment projects that require  money:
1) Starship and Raptor
2) Production and launch of Starlink satellites
3) Production of F9 second stages for Starlink launches
4)  Gateways in the USA
5) Going to other countries and installation infrastructures and Gateways there
6) Production of terminals and their sale to subscribers to receive income from services (but each terminal takes now at least $ 2,000 from the pocket of Space X).

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..

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tuna-Fish on 12/12/2020 09:34 pm
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. IMHO it would be pretty damn stupid for them to slow down launches for money reasons while money still basically grows on trees for them.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 12/13/2020 12:11 am
I see no sign that SL is facing a cash crunch, not that they confide in me. Fresh money coming in ...

Shifting focus to the financial commitments that vsatman listed, I'd like to suggest Mr. Musk take on one more. A commitment to financial support for the rebuilding of Aericibo.

The astronomical community has concerns about Starlink that have been somewhat, but not completely, mollified. It's unclear how far this mollification has penetrated the popular consciousness. Not only would support of a rebuild help heal wounds, real or imagined, it would just flat out be a neat thing.

Start a fundraiser among the big players. Hold a benefit concert. I've heard he knows some show biz types. :)  Maybe a celebrity auction for some bits of SN8. There is much he could do beyond any starter money he might commit.

Man, can you picture an auction followed by a concert? Elon Musk, Jeff Bezoz, Peter Beck, and all the rest, all in the same venue grooving to the same tunes and rebuilding that antenna.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GKPMk5_gStk (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GKPMk5_gStk)


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/13/2020 09:06 pm
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??

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/13/2020 09:40 pm
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??
Starlink deployment spending totals for 2020:
Launch $25M oper launch *14 launches = $350M
Sat Manufacture $500K/sat *60 * 14 launches = $420M
Total sat deployment Launch plus manufacture  = $770M
A pessimistic cost per Gateway installation $3M * 100 Gateways worldwide = $300M
A pessimistic cost of Manufacture of GT's $1500 * 100,000 = $150M

Total estimate of Starlink expenditures during 2020 = $1,220M

There is some revenue for Starlink in 2020 that would reduce the cash needed amounts.

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.

Further NOTE:
With 7 now being the life expectancy of a booster. And a average number of launches with the same booster a possible 5 (95% likelihood of successful launch and recovery). The cost per flight for Starlink is now less that $25M or more closely to $23M.

ADDED: A BTW those 100,000 GT's would bring in from users $120M in 2021. Plus $88M for subsidies from FCC + Another $100+M from DOD for sats, etcetra = $300+M in revenues for Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 12/13/2020 10:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/14/2020 12:15 am
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.
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.

Since you pointed out how pessimistic I was being. It only strengthens the premise that SpaceX is not hurting for cash to keep going at same launch pace for Starlink as it did for 2020.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/14/2020 07:33 pm

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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 12/14/2020 08:40 pm

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...
2, 3, and 4 are dirt cheap if you promise to buy one million of them.
A commercial, off-the-shelf, PoE injector should set them back no more than 20 bucks. The required specialty parts are made by the hundreds of millions anually and thus dirt cheap.
A decent whitelabel wifi AP/router should be no more than 50 bucks (no 3x3 mimo bandsteering on 3 different frequencies needed, a simple 2x2 2,4GHz/5GHz dual band router should suffice. Remember, the uplink is <200Mbit/s).
And the mount? Injection molded plastic. One you've made the molds (probably around 10k each) each part coming out of it is about as expensive as the base plastic pellets it's made of.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Orbiter on 12/18/2020 03:17 pm
Any speculation on what "Starlink RF" might stand for?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52617.msg2170017;topicseen#new
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/18/2020 11:15 pm
SpaceX received landing rights in Germany today.  One-year initial license.

https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2020/20201218_Starlink.html?nn=265778
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: donaldp on 12/18/2020 11:45 pm
Cross posting the English version.
https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2020/20201218_Starlink.html?nn=265778
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 12/19/2020 12:05 am
Any speculation on what "Starlink RF" might stand for?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52617.msg2170017;topicseen#new
Rideshare Flight?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/19/2020 12:31 am
Cross posting the English version.
https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2020/20201218_Starlink.html?nn=265778
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 12/19/2020 04:37 pm
So there hasn’t been much complaints from Astronomers about Starlink in the last few months. Is that because:
A) I missed it or
B) have the reflectivity mitigation efforts been that successful?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/20/2020 04:09 pm
https://twitter.com/futurejurvetson/status/1340705574065979394

Quote
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.

Edit to add: higher res version
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/20/2020 06:19 pm

Quote
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.

How can I get one?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 12/22/2020 10:26 am
More funding ($7 billion) to "bolster broadband access to help Americans connect remotely during the pandemic".

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/21/politics/stimulus-deal-votes/index.html

Quote from:  Clare Foran and Manu Raju CNN-Updated 0501 GMT (1301 HKT) December 22, 2020
$7 billion to bolster broadband access to help Americans connect remotely during the pandemic

Starlink seems like the only service that can quickly connect anyone outside of served areas. Apart from this the cash may help where there IS connectivity but people and school districts etc cannot afford it.

However I expect something like, bids from authorities to pay for Starlink to connect their constituents and remote learners etc.

Edit: This is in the latest COVID stimulus/recovery legislation passed Monday/Tuesday 20/21 of Dec 2020
Edit date corrected.
Edit. I have no idea how the money is applied for, by who, or how its distributed, or on what criteria etc etc, I just guessed education as one likely connection.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/22/2020 05:35 pm
Reddit user u/rogerairgood (https://www.reddit.com/user/rogerairgood/) has confirmed that UK beta program invites are going out.  Ł89 monthly plus Ł439 for the dish.  Didn't see any documents or news reports about UK approval, but they must have received it.

Edit:  Oops.  Didn't see it already posted in another thread.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51012.msg2171464#msg2171464
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/22/2020 09:47 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1341504088253579268
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/22/2020 10:14 pm
'move' does that imply altitude changes, spacing or inclination? 

Are there not another 60 or 120 that have yet to join the constellation?

Heating the antenna seems like that should be a default.

Regardless it's interesting to see SpaceX iterate on this new venture as well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/22/2020 10:47 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 12/23/2020 12:35 am

...

Heating the antenna seems like that should be a default.

...


Just my reading, but I took it to be that they were already doing that, but now are cranking up the heat even more.

I think this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. One of the louder critiques I hear about Starlink is that it is a power hog.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/23/2020 04:11 am
You can also temporarily tilt the antenna (and make sure it's facing the sun, if the sun is out) and then run heat full blast so the snow slides off then tilt back.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/23/2020 04:20 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 12/23/2020 12:30 pm
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/23/2020 01:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: launchwatcher on 12/23/2020 06:00 pm
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.
So my experience with snow is a bit further south in areas that bottom out at around -10 to -20C.   

A black coating would help with snow melt but it might lead to overheating in summer.    Some Teflon or the like in the coating would probably also help.   

The starlink antenna is ~59cm in diameter - about 1/4 square meter in area, so it would get about ~250W of solar heating if it's square on to the sun on a cloudless day.   Relative to that, 100W running 24x7 isn't too bad.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 12/23/2020 06:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: matthewkantar on 12/23/2020 07:02 pm
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.

In many conditions, domes and cones will just gather similar snow/ice coatings. A hundred watts is like leaving an old school light bulb lit. Not a big deal to run a dedicated house voltage line in colder climates.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zond on 12/23/2020 07:20 pm
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
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 12/23/2020 10:33 pm
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.
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.


Once the cold front passes over that cold, hard, dry air with clear sky's ushers in the frigids. Ive seen it as low as -30C. Applying 100W to the antenna wouldn't help much.


I've always assumed this pattern of snow only at warmer temps (a very relative term) was universal. Could easily be wrong. If the assumption holds, the secret is to melt the snow as it falls. Unless the antenna is pointing near zenith the combination of a flat face and the earlier suggested Teflon should keep the water off. Biggest problem would be drip icicles messing with balance. One solution might be a short segment of heater coils along the bottom edge getting the full 100W just long enough to break the icicles free.


Some design ideas. A temp sensor and monitoring signal strength should give an indication of snow buildup. Possibly a couple of ohm meter type sensors on the top and bottom edge to sense moisture. Might only be needed on the bottom edge. This should be enough for the antenna to sense when snow measures are needed.


Small changes to antenna azimuth while monitoring motor current draw would show when icicles are building up.


A late thought. The heating doesn't have to cover the entire dish all at once. Arrange the heater elements in hexagonal arrays. I assume that it is possible to get signal strength from individual elements or groups of elements in a phased array. Apply up to 100W where needed. Let somebody else figure the RF impact.


Either system might work or they might be complimentary. There's a certain humor in seeing those SoCal SX engineers mucking about Saskatchewan doing field testing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 12/23/2020 11:14 pm
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 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.msg2165708#msg2165708)
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.
When the FCC gives a permit for a specific altitude, what precision do they expect? +/- X km? +/- some percentage of assigned altitude?


Shifting the number of sats per plane is (conjecture) probably a temporary expedient to improve coverage and is (guess) a result of findings in the beta tests. If they need 18 sats minimum per plane then they need at least 19 so they have a backup sat. IIRC the licensing is for the maximum birds per plane so if they go under they may have operational issues but no licensing issues. They'll have the opportunity to fatten the planes when they get more sats up. In the meantime they gamble on sat mortality.


A possible strategy for fattening the planes when all the planes at this altitude are populated. I don't know if the licensing will allow this. Launch a 60 bird plane at the same inclination but at a higher altitude. As the lower working planes precess beneath, drift sats down to join and fatten the plane.


I have a hunch the working lifetimes of these early sats will not reach five years. They'll be jockeying around as SX learns how to play with its new toy and expending propellant. Once the constellation has been fully populated the second generation (time, not technology) will probably hit the target.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 12/24/2020 02:17 am
At our 42.28° latitude East of Ann Arbor, MI the record low is -22.0°F (-30°C).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/24/2020 08:15 am
https://twitter.com/lrocket/status/1342009284914159616

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 12/24/2020 09:55 am
How about something like a spinning clear view screen used on boats?
(central motor would be simpler, but I'm imagining a 3rd party product)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 12/24/2020 02:55 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 12/25/2020 04:20 pm
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?

Using SEP it's probably close to 30m/s.  There is no Oberth effect for a inclination change of a circular orbit.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/25/2020 05:36 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/25/2020 06:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 12/25/2020 06:22 pm
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.

It seems that Viasat's lawyers scraped up all the BS they could find about Starlink and put it into one giant document of FUD!

It is perhaps not surprising that posters in web forums rely on "stuff they found on the internet", you would think professional lawyers would find better sources, but no. They cite already debunked reports form sources such as Business Insider, whose reports seem to be a lot more "clickbait" than "inside info".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/25/2020 07:40 pm
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 12/25/2020 09:09 pm
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

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/26/2020 02:51 am
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



It’s OT, but we as a species need to have tigheter rules on anything that goes  into orbit and we need to launch a campaign to clean up a lot of what’s up there.  Use some ion drives and start with the most dangerous pieces. 

Well or maybe we start with identifying the most dangerous pieces.

Either way, I’m not too worried about Starlink space junk.  But they can only prove it to everyone over time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/26/2020 03:07 am
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

Nice. So, taking 46678 as an example, unfortunately those charts aren't updated and ended nearly a month ago in that case. Pulling some data from space-track and graphing it, we can confirm that this satellite has continued to show characteristic uncontrolled orbital decay. We can  also confirm the likely failure point on November 1st-2nd, 2020 compared to a launch date of October 18th, 2020 - so luckily a couple of weeks into orbit raising rather than much later and much higher.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 12/26/2020 09:04 pm
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

So they are.  Thanks.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DreamyPickle on 12/26/2020 11:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/27/2020 04:46 pm
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.

Were people dismissing this?  It didn't seem so to me.  Viasat is playing with fire here.  The last thing we need is the expense and delay of NEPA.  And if Viasat is in front of a sympathetic judge, all bets are off as to the amount of expense and delay.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/28/2020 04:30 am
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, it's hard to say which way they'll jump. But FCC already said NEPA process doesn't apply to megaconstellations back when a law student tried to pull this trick, I doubt they'll change their tone now. Remember also there're tons of opposition to Starlink participating in RDOF, and that turns out well, so I don't think it's time to panic yet.

As for new administration, my understanding is that FCC is an independent agency, the administration cannot order them to do anything, see for example the whole drama around Ligado. The president can appoint new commissioners to replace old ones, but that will need senate confirmation, so as long as senate is in Republican's hand, there will be check and balance.

As for how long an environment review will take, my wild guess is not long, a few months probably. The reason satellites are exempt from NEPA process is because the areas of concern in NEPA don't apply to satellites, this won't change for mega-constellations, so most of the checkboxes in the review will just go to "N/A" without much discussion, the only parts that has some impact (light pollution, re-entry, orbital debris) are already well discussed in various filings, they can just put that in with some modification. Actually if I were SpaceX, I would start working with FCC to write this in secret just in case, Viasat did not think this through, SpaceX has far more experience with NEPA process than any satellite company, they have tons of EIS rewrites with Boca Chica already, they know how to jump through the hoops.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 12/28/2020 12:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/28/2020 01:59 pm
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.

FCC is responsible for orbital debris rules too.  They have a lot of control over satellites.  FAA hasn't really done much with in orbit operations, they'll be more involved with crewed vehicles.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/28/2020 11:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 12/29/2020 06:18 am
Here's my book report on how the FCC and NEPA fit together.

1) NEPA allows agencies like the FCC to create a list of activities with "categorical exclusions" that won't be considered by the FCC.  Currently, environmental pollution in orbit for the purposes of FCC licensing is a categorical exclusion.

2) The FCC could amend its list of categorical exclusions, but to do so, it would have to engage in a rulemaking activity.

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.

4) I can't find the FCC's rules for voting on license applications, so I don't know if there's a date by which they need to be voted up or down, and what happens in the case of tie votes.  The application for modifying the rest of the first license's shells down to 540-570km was accepted for filing on 2020-06-12, and applications are supposed to be disposed of within 180 days of acceptance, which clearly didn't happen.  So the clock got stopped for something.  But one would guess that this will be dealt with before the end of the term, unless they accept Viasat's protest.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/29/2020 10:31 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1343880709157474304

Quote
Starlink “poses a hazard” to Viasat’s profits, more like it. Stop the sneaky moves, Charlie Ergen!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/29/2020 12:43 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1343880709157474304

Quote
Starlink “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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tomness on 12/29/2020 03:04 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1343880709157474304

Quote
Starlink “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.

He probably not wrong per Sé lol. I have HughesNet and Dish which is owned by EchoStar founded and owned by Charlie. We constantly being throttled on the internet and rolling black outs on tv programs on Dish. Miss the good old days were I could just pirate Dish Via hacked free to air receiver. Can't wait for Rural Fiber to Home or Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Overtone on 12/29/2020 03:48 pm
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.

Actually, Biden can name a new chairman without Senate confirmation, if that person is already confirmed as an FCC commissioner.  That's how Ajit Pai got the job.  Current (democratic) FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel is lobbying hard to be named as chairman.

Your observation remains valid, however.  There is currently a vacancy on the 5-member commission. It will be hard to do anything of substance when every vote ends in a 2-2 tie.  If the Republicans win at least one of the two Georgia senate seats, it may be a long time before another FCC commissioner is confirmed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: david1971 on 12/30/2020 01:30 am
How is the Starlink coverage footprint developing with time?  Does the border of coverage shift a few miles south every day as the newer satellites drift towards their final position, or do large chunks of the map "turn on" at certain times?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DreamyPickle on 12/30/2020 10:56 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/30/2020 04:10 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/30/2020 04:16 pm
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.

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.
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.

spacex is also developing *fully* reusable rockets that don't even need an expendable upper stage. Viasat doesn't do that. So Viasat's upper stage either reenters or is stuck up there as orbital debris somewhere.

Viasat's business is massively in danger from Starlink. If Starlink succeeds, Viasat will have to slash prices and I'll bet they go bankrupt in the process.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/30/2020 04:22 pm
Another thing about the waiver: megaconstellations in LEO have been envisioned for decades. To claim the waiver doesn't apply because megaconstellations are "new" is just ahistorical.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/31/2020 08:51 am
Quote
Starlink “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.

Charlie Ergen is the head of Dish, who is trying to grab the 12GHz band which Starlink is using (https://www.fiercewireless.com/regulatory/dish-spacex-trade-shots-12-ghz-fight). I wonder if this slip of tongue means Elon is more worried about the 12GHz fight than anything Viasat is cooking up.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 12/31/2020 03:03 pm
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.

IANAL, but I believe that NEPA is written so that all agencies have a responsibility to define what in their area--and what not--needs to be included in their regulations, and the authority to act on those definitions.  They have broad authority on this, subject only to review by the Council on Environmental Quality.

It's possible to go to court to challenge what exclusions the FCC has in place, but I'd guess that there was a strong presumption that the FCC could do what it sees fit, unless it can be shown that the rulemaking is somewhat self-inconsistent.  (That's basically how the ISPs went after net neutrality during the Obama administration, by arguing that FCC was trying to classify them as common carriers when by their own rules they were information services.

I don't think that a similar distinction exists to pick at with the current environment categorical exclusion, which is... categorical.  Conservative courts tend to be more textual in their interpretations, so suing seems like a low-yield strategy in this case.

So my guess is that Viasat will ultimately told that they need to ask for a rulemaking, which:

a) Probably can't be passed without a clear majority and
b) Would be so drawn-out that the FCC would probably have to grant SpaceX its license mod long before the rule was finalized.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/31/2020 03:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/31/2020 03:56 pm
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.
However it would make sense to deploy lower altitude birds eventually, regardless of frequency.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 12/31/2020 04:22 pm
The second generation constellation would be lower altitude.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 12/31/2020 06:45 pm
There is an issue that's been bugging me for a long time. It includes StarLink and competitors as a subset but has wider ramifications. Mods, squelch this line if it's too far off.


ISTM that distribution and content are two very different things and call for different regulatory environments, including monopoly considerations. This applies to power, gas, phone, cable and internet. If the two functions were separated it would break up mini and not so mini monopolies and hopefully deliver better service.


If the local electric company was limited to maintaining and billing for the local power infrastructure, they would be a public utility and regulated as such. I could buy electricity from any power plant attached to my piece of the grid. This would not be a public utility. The difference is that it's not practical to have competing distribution vendors. Of course there are expensive line losses if I go too far afield, but that rolls into my choice of vendor. This applies to phone, gas, cable and internet.


I want my ISP to deliver bits, not supply them. If I want movies or some other form of paid for content, I can find it and buy it without my bit provider getting into the act. This seems to be the StarLink model so far. I think the grant for rural internet has a phone service requirement but that's is limited and has public safety overtones. Even that could go away without really damaging anything as long as there is a bit of handholding for the less computer literate.


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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 12/31/2020 07:11 pm
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.

Net Neutrality is a difficult "policy" around which to wrap one's mind due to terminology that is somewhat "loaded" to the casual eye.  And insofar as it has political undertones, discussion here is fraught.  But let me try and help in as neutral a fashion as I can muster.

If I read you right then "No ... NN is not intended to keep distribution and content separate".  IIUC, NN is intended to keep service providers from discriminating against traffic.  NN sounds logical and good until you break it down. 

The anti-NN argument is that this creates a Tragedy of the Commons where some killer app overwhelms the infrastructure and degrades service for other applications.   The argument further holds that market forces between the ISP and the Customer should be sufficient to keep the ISPs honest and only discriminating against traffic where, and how, it is necessary to provide quality service.


I don't know the implications one way or the other to end user cost.  I'd lean toward saying it's mostly a wash.

I don't think it has any implications as causing Elon to lean toward staying solely a bit provider.  If Musk has content that is valuable, he will certainly sell it though the means may or may not overlap in the way you were interested about.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 12/31/2020 10:06 pm
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".  Information services are largely unregulated.  Common carriers are much more tightly regulated, and come with a variety of rules about applying neutral access.  The FCC has historically ruled that ISPs are information services.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC has the final word on how to do this classification.  Obama's FCC changed the classification for ISPs to common carriers.  Trump's FCC changed it back to information services.  Presumably, a Biden-nominated fifth member would allow the FCC to change ISPs back into common carriers.

Next, there are the politics, which mostly revolve around whether ISPs can treat different kinds of content differently, either by advantaging some content that's owned by the ISP (Comcast owns NBC, Time Warner used to own Spectrum, etc.), or by forcing content providers to pay to get preferred access.  This all sounds kinda bad, and it mostly is.

But now we come to what's really going on, which actually makes this somewhat on-topic for this thread.

As far as your average consumer is concerned, you can divide the internet up into three chunks:

1) There are consumer ISPs (the FCC calls them BIASes, broadband internet access services) that provide the "last mile" hookups to residential and commercial consumers.

2) There are content providers, like Netflix, YouTube, etc.  These are called "edge providers", which is incredibly confusing to internet geeks, but what are ya gonna do?

3) There's stuff in the middle, which hooks the EPs up to the BIASes.

Now, the "BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Mine! All mine!" cartoon version of net neutrality has the BIASes blackmailing the EPs to provide their content, which of course provokes outrage and drives Twitter flame wars.  But it's really simpler than that, because the EPs have to pay somebody to deliver their content to the BIASes.

The real action is in who gets paid to do that.

In the utopian neutral version, the EPs pay transit networks to deliver content to the BIASes, and the BIASes pass it along to the consumers.  And this was indeed how the internet worked back in the Olden Times.

But starting back in the early oh-oh's, as streaming video started to become A Thing, vanilla-flavored transit networks started to get replaced by Content Delivery Networks (CDNs).  The incredibly short version of how a CDN works is that it's a private network that picks up the individual pieces of content from the EP and transports them to a series of caches that are near the consumer.  This vastly improves latency, lowers the total bandwidth going over the transit networks, and improves quality of service to the consumers.

Guess where those caches live?  If you guessed "as close to the BIAS distribution points as possible", you can collect your pony out back.

But note two things here:

1) The traditional transit networks are kinda screwed, because the EPs are paying CDNs for traffic instead of them.  This isn't the end of the world, though, because in reality, the CDNs turn around and pay the transit networks for bandwidth to implement their VPNs to deliver the content in the first place.

2) Because the CDN caches have to be close to the BIASes, the BIASes have obviously discovered that they have leverage, and they want a bigger taste of that CDN money.

And that, dear readers, is what's really going on.  It's not about whether the BIASes are in a position to screw the consumer; it's about who's getting paid for transit.  In the neutral version, the EPs pay the CDNs, who pay the transit carriers.  In the non-neutral version, the BIASes force the EPs to pay them directly for hosting the CDN caches, effectively going into the CDN biz themselves, and icing out companies like Akamai.  That's pretty much it.  (Huge oversimplifications here--this is already long enough.)

There's a lively argument to be had about which model is better for consumers, but the differences at the margin are pretty small.  Naturally, since almost everybody hates their cable or mobile phone company, it's easy to root for the guys that you don't really see and hate less.

Finally, back on-topic:  SpaceX will be first and foremost a BIAS, i.e., they'll be in the same club as the companies we love to hate.  We don't hate them now because they're doing cool stuff, enabling new markets, bringing fire to the benighted masses--and of course we're space geeks, so they're magnificent.

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.

The other thing I can guarantee:  CDNs are already talking to SpaceX about how to host their caches in SpaceX's gateway facilities, and who gets paid what.  In many cases, SpaceX's gateways themselves will be hosted in or near internet exchange points (think of IXPs as transit carriers in a single building), so the cache conversation is pretty short.  In other cases, the CDNs want to get efficient access to big enough chunks of the rural BIAS market to make it worthwhile, and SpaceX will be trying to find the sweet spot where they gouge the CDNs just enough that everybody can make money, but SpaceX can make more money than anybody else.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la męme chose.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Exastro on 01/01/2021 12:23 am
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...


This is the kind of post that makes me wish I could hit the "Like" button more than once.  Excellent!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/01/2021 03:40 am
This may be the reason Elon is cross with Charlie Ergen: FCC’s Pai circulates draft NPRM on 12 GHz band (https://www.fiercewireless.com/regulatory/fcc-s-pai-circulates-draft-nprm-12-ghz-band)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ulmo on 01/01/2021 08:28 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 01/01/2021 12:08 pm
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.

The other possibility is a double ground bounce, where things go UT-Sat1-GW1-Sat2-GW2, and vice versa.  Then a gateway with no backhaul makes decent sense.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mark K on 01/01/2021 05:10 pm

Actually people hate Comcast and the like because they provide crappy service, use their regulatory capture to jack up prices and stifle competition, not just because they service the end user... They currently really are really bad with predatory management, bad labor relations and a government granted control of the market. It is not good. That is why people pine for something like Starlink to break this situation (whether they will or will not be able or want to).

I don't want to have this conversion leave with the wrong impression of the large end service internet/cable companies...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Redclaws on 01/01/2021 06:05 pm
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". ...

This is a very good post, but it seems to ignore entirely another aspect of the debate (and perhaps this is another issue going by the same name).  This is the concern that companies which provide last mile access also own/are content generation/media firms may give preferential access to their own media, eg, higher quality video streams (or degrading competing streams) or not charging for bandwidth to stream certain content.  Net neutrality is *also* intended to be about this.

But rather than being a somewhat arcane debate about who gets paid, this is more of an issue of possible monopoly power, abuse of that possible power, and what, if any, regulatory remedies are appropriate.

And this is also a part of the net neutrality debate that seems largely irrelevant to SpaceX, so leaving it out isn’t really an issue...  but the absence of it was bugging me.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 01/01/2021 06:08 pm
Looks like SpaceX is bringing in Silicon Valley growth folks to manage the global roll-out.  Julia DeWahl appears to be heading global operations (I assume this is sales and customer service).  She had a variety of operations roles at Opendoor, where she was employee 10.  I think she was there through 1000+ employees.

https://twitter.com/juliadewahl/status/1344766572062257155
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/06/2021 02:08 am
The Brightness of VisorSat-Design Starlink Satellites (https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00374)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/07/2021 02:29 am
The Brightness of VisorSat-Design Starlink Satellites (https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00374)

Quote
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.
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.

Or would allow them to launch larger, more capable satellites (say, more optimized for Starship) without being brighter than they are now.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kang54 on 01/07/2021 05:07 pm
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dlapine on 01/07/2021 05:18 pm
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)

Summary of the 31 page document (from Page 1):

SpaceX’s proposed modification either improves upon or maintains the environmental
effects of its currently authorized system in every way. Viasat, in its desperation to mislead
the Commission into harming competition, relies on warmed-over and debunked claims as
well as material misrepresentations to support a belated Petition that, without irony, asks
the Commission to prevent SpaceX from implementing environment-friendly changes.

- The very studies Viasat relies upon, as well as analytical software developed by NASA and
real-world experience, confirm that SpaceX’s modification would:
o Decrease the effect of its satellites on astronomy and the night sky
o Decrease the risk of satellite collisions
o Decrease the time in orbit of its non-propulsive satellites
o Cause no change in the number of satellite launches and reentries associated with
its constellation.

- SpaceX—not Viasat—has worked extensively at the highest levels with the astronomy
community to develop strategies to protect space exploration. SpaceX’s ongoing efforts
have set the standard for the industry and revealed important information about how to
deploy an environmentally-friendly NGSO satellite system—including the fact that
operating below 600 km (as SpaceX proposes) significantly decreases the impact of
reflected sunlight.
- Accordingly, Viasat has failed to raise any reason—let alone the “extraordinary
circumstances” required—to justify overturning decades of precedent in this case.
- In contrast to the extensive measures that SpaceX has implemented to minimize its
environmental footprint, Viasat has filed its own modification that would make its
proposed NGSO system worse for the environment on all of the metrics raised in its
Petition. Thus, the only thing “extraordinary” about Viasat’s Petition is its evident lack of
self-awareness.
- SpaceX urges all would-be NGSO operators, including Viasat and Amazon, to follow
SpaceX’s lead in ensuring safe operations that minimize their environmental footprint,
ensure the safety of life on the ground, and protect the night sky for exploration by future
generations.
- Each effort Viasat has taken against SpaceX demonstrates its growing desperation about
increased competition. Quickly dismissing these types of transparently anti-competitive
filings would send a strong signal to Viasat to stop wasting Commission resources and
trivializing important issues through anti-competitive gamesmanship.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/08/2021 04:16 am
The Brightness of VisorSat-Design Starlink Satellites (https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00374)

Quote
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 01/08/2021 06:19 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/09/2021 08:12 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1327645031100940288
Quote
Big expansion of beta program in 6 to 8 weeks!

It is now 8 weeks from this statement to the day. Is there any indication that what this is referring to has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur? And if not, what is the hold up? Change of intentions, satellite deployment, regulatory, user terminal manufacturing, etc?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/09/2021 09:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/09/2021 11:26 pm


As to the expansion of Beta. That has already happened with Beta recently started (December) in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Germany ...


I could only find evidence for user kits being delivered to the UK and Canada. Do you have sources for Germany, Australia and New Zealand?  I graphed the number of daily connection tests on TestMy.Net and didn't see much evidence for faster deployments. With an ever increasing user base, you would only expect a decrease in connection tests given slower new deployments. With a big expansion in terms of deployment rate relatively speaking, you would expect it to look more like a mature service like HughesNet over time but if anything we have seen the opposite (less daily tests, less similar to Hughes). Unfortunately, as SpaceX isn't a public company and without a tweet with the information, it is going to be extremely hard to judge how successful Starlink is in terms of subscribers/revenue.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 01/10/2021 12:28 am
Its the definition of big. And whether that is visible.... So likely plenty of internal wheels turning to roll out beta to the longer list of countries, but this will not make much of a show in take-up for another few weeks.
However we are getting drawn into a rabbit hole. it is not worth arguing about this yet!  and its stuffing up the thread with wool.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/10/2021 12:46 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/10/2021 02:09 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 01/10/2021 02:58 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 01/10/2021 04:03 am
snip....
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.
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!
That (I) was long winded and confused... but 10 sats is  some 1/2 of an orbital plane!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 01/10/2021 04:18 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 01/11/2021 02:50 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6MfM8EFkGg
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 01/11/2021 10:33 pm
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.

You can photograph the whole sky while still staying any arbitrary angular distance away from zenith.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Faerwald on 01/17/2021 02:51 am
Not sure this has been posted before, but why would Starlink need 5g spectrum allocation?

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/)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2021 02:54 am
Not sure this has been posted before, but why would Starlink need 5g spectrum allocation?

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/)
They use some of the same frequencies.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 01/17/2021 06:16 pm
Not sure this has been posted before, but why would Starlink need 5g spectrum allocation?

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/)
They use some of the same frequencies.

Specifically, Starlink uses some of these frequencies for gateway uplink (from ground stations to satellites).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Faerwald on 01/18/2021 03:07 am
Not sure this has been posted before, but why would Starlink need 5g spectrum allocation?

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/)
They use some of the same frequencies.

Specifically, Starlink uses some of these frequencies for gateway uplink (from ground stations to satellites).

I am not convinced yet. I was under the impression the frequency bands for starlink included among some others 19.7 to 20.2 and 27.5 to 29.1 GHz.
The allocations that where granted are outside those bands for frequencies from 25.1 to 27.5 GHz.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/21/2021 04:32 am
https://spacenews.com/spacex-surpasses-1000-satellite-mark-in-latest-starlink-launch/

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 01/21/2021 04:24 pm
Cloudflare (security, CDN) CTO's report regarding low ping times.

https://twitter.com/jgrahamc/status/1352302555385233409
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/22/2021 05:45 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 01/22/2021 10:12 pm
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/23/2021 03:25 am
Some news from 1/22 presentation to FCC (https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=3683193)

Quote
* 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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cdebuhr on 01/23/2021 03:46 am
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.

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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: inonepiece on 01/23/2021 02:13 pm
Interesting to see the SeL4 operating system used in a space application (from 2017):

https://research.csiro.au/tsblog/securing-outer-space-sel4/

A good use for microkernel OSes like this is as a substrate on which to run another OS like Linux.  This lets you for example reliably reboot or upgrade your very functional but less-reliable OS (Linux, say) that may otherwise become unresponsive or persistently misbehave through accidental or malicious cause.  It also allows for reliably separating multiple systems running on the same hardware (imagine satellite control and a netflix cache running on the same hardware -- though I'm not predicting that particular example is what they'll do).

SeL4 is not a fix-all for security, but it seems a good candidate for Starlink: if one of the most economically relevant parts of the threat model is along the lines of "oops, somebody took control of our multi-billion dollar gigantic satellite network, how do we turn it off and on again?", SeL4 arguably nails that better than any alternative: it has very impressive correctness work and it's relatively efficient.

It wouldn't hurt for reputational risk about snooping either, in terms of marketing before an incident at least -- backing that up with actual security that reduces the risk of one happening is harder and a lot more work of course.  It does provide very interesting tools for that: not only I suppose a unique level of correctness proofs (on some hardware at least), but also object capability security [1], cutting-edge work on "mixed criticality", etc.

On the other hand, Musk is a pragmatic (metaphorical) poker player, and maybe he (or the people he's hired) thinks that a less cutting-edge tool will do the job as well as it needs doing and reduce the risk of going bust.

[1] http://habitatchronicles.com/2017/05/what-are-capabilities/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: inonepiece on 01/23/2021 02:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 01/23/2021 02:56 pm
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.

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.
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.
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.
A space frame?  That one might already be taken. A vacuum frame? That's weird.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 01/23/2021 03:04 pm
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.
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.


amazing people hat back on: You go for it Elon!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/23/2021 04:08 pm
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.

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.
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.
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.
A space frame?  That one might already be taken. A vacuum frame? That's weird.
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.

Such a refurbishment would place back into the flow quickly as in just a couple of months such boosters as qualify for another 10.

The main restriction on number launches per month is the launch to launch cycle time. But with a 37 day cycle and 5 boosters SpaceX could launch every week for the next 10 weeks starting in the first week of February. As stated before the weekly launch for 10 weeks using 5 boosters would get 2 boosters to the flight numbers of 10 flights which would drop the flight rate to barely over 2 in a month starting mid April. But it is unlikely that 10 week long weekly launch cadence will be done. So a 10 day vs a 7 day is more likely (100 days vs 70 days period) reaching to the mid of May. But as stated before even at just an average of 3 per month. Starlink would be in Operations Mode by ~mid June. But with easy refurbishment and a solid shorter launch to launch cycle time for boosters of 30 to 37 days. SpaceX could be more aggressive and do a weekly launch cadence as long as weather allows for the complete year. Whereupon you might see 24 Starlink launches in all of 2021.

Added: A general note is that if SpaceX continues with the launching of ~1,000 sats a year (just 17 launches each year). SpaceX will reach 100% for the original constellation FCC licence for 4,400 sats before April 2024. April 2024 is when SpaceX had to have 50% of its sats (2,200) for that licence on orbit and working. Such that they are not in jeopardy of missing even for the larger constellation Licencing any of the required deployment milestones.
NOTE: The larger  V-Band 8,000 sats constellation FCC Licence 50% milestone is Nov 2024. So sat launch rate will only go up once V-Band sats are introduced.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 01/23/2021 06:01 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Arb on 01/23/2021 06:46 pm
...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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/23/2021 07:30 pm
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.
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.


amazing people hat back on: You go for it Elon!
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 01/23/2021 08:02 pm
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.

https://twitter.com/LaunchPhoto/status/1352983832853667841

Would make sense.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 01/24/2021 08:04 am
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.

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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/24/2021 01:48 pm
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.

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.
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.

Frustratingly the twice flown FH side boosters 52 and 53 have been sitting unassigned and with a FH core for 18 months.  There some a lot of potential flights sitting there with those two.

Booster refurbish with new Merlins almost seems like a given at this point.

But maybe doing so at 10 was a target and maybe they can exceed that, at least with the 6 engines that just do the boost phase burn.  The 3 other engines get a lot more starts.  It’s going to be interesting to watch play out this year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/24/2021 02:45 pm
The new bits on the Transporter-1 Starlink sats.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/24/2021 05:07 pm
Does it do this?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: EspenU on 01/24/2021 05:46 pm
Confirmed by Elon that they are laser links.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353408098342326276
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/24/2021 06:09 pm
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*
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 01/24/2021 07:13 pm

TF and other Starlink permaskeptics:"...but they'll never make laser links cheap enough!!!"
SpaceX: *Makes laser links cheap enough*

Whenever I hear that, I think of Olivia Dunham in Fringe, "You don't know me well enough to say something like that to me".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 01/24/2021 08:02 pm
Yes! The frame is key. My expectation is the first one torn down after 10 flights will be completely stripped and every cm X-rayed and subjected to any other voo doo they can think of. They have a good idea where most of the high stress points are but there could be some unexpected ones waiting to bite.


Huey's underwent depot maintenance at 2000 hours during the late great unpleasantness in SE Asia. That's ~18-24 months. The airframe was completely stripped, inspected and painted. Wiring harness replaced (this is sooo important!). Engine and gearboxes went to the shops for rebuild and new/rebuilt installed. My guess is the avionics was just trashed and replaced. Don't know what they did with all the fiddley parts like pushrods and latches.


It was virtually a new ship when it went back into service. F9 deserves no less. It all depends on how well the frame holds up.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 01/24/2021 08:16 pm
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?
Ha ha hee hee ho hah! When pig fly.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 01/24/2021 08:57 pm
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.

For this to be true, Starlink would have to have a functional monopoly on some kind of feature that an edge provider (using the FCC's definition here, which is any kind of service that provides non-transit services to consumers) would need to survive.

There are possibly three areas where Starlink might do that:

1) The super-remote activity market.  That's a funny place to put a real-live edge service.  It's more for a commercial/industrial consumer.  It's also a market that doesn't exist today, because there's no solution that'll plunk down a bunch of bandwidth in the middle of nowhere.  I can't see this getting huge for a long, long time, if ever.

2) The low-latency QoS market.  This could turn out to be a real thing where you might get edge providers grumbling--eventually.  The finance guys are the early adopters here, but they're not price-sensitive at all.  The one where price might turn out to be disabling is tele-operation.  It could cause even more grumbling if Tesla goes into the tele-operation biz and gets a sweetheart deal.

3) Space-based edge services.  These would be very similar to terrestrial super-remote services.  The wrinkle is that there will at some point be deep-space network aggregators that might want to use Starlink as an over-the-top last mile.  In the long term, this could turn out to be a big business.  It's also one that I would expect Starlink to enter directly, which might attract some anti-competitive scrutiny if things got weird.

None of this stuff affects consumers directly, so they're unlikely to develop hatred based on it.  But you could get some whining from edge providers and commercial/industrial customers.  That's a completely different kind of whining, though--some of it done via lobbyists.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 01/24/2021 08:58 pm
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.
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.


amazing people hat back on: You go for it Elon!
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.

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.
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.


SX is working in this direction and is sewing what may be seeds for future ills. I doubt Elon would go there but he will not live for ever. SX will surely live on.


So much for an OT rant.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 01/24/2021 09:06 pm
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...

Sadly (or perhaps suspiciously), the link dropped out just as they would have had to jettison the attachments on top of the Starlink stack.  It would have been interesting to see how they managed that.  That's a pretty hefty piece of space junk.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/24/2021 09:17 pm
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*
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.

Noticed in the picture the what looks to be the telescope part goes to the right with a tracking mirror that could move +- 60 degrees or more in x and y directions. With 2 more devices. One pointing up and one down would give full spherical coverage to track and communicate with anything at any angle so long as it is same protocol and possibly close color match.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/24/2021 10:11 pm
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/24/2021 10:30 pm
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!
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.

But in came SpaceX with an extreme innovation that allowed maximum volume usage and maximum mass usage so that >95% of the launched mass is actual sat with a total of 60 sats. Double the most optimistic estimates. The previous estimates were 70% or less (in some estimates only 50%) of the launched mass actually being the sat. This made the cost prior to that of deploying (manufacture and launch) of from $6 to 8B for 4400 sats. But it is now possibly even less than the value of $3.5B.

We have continually been blown away by SpaceX innovation and it's very significant effect on costs. A cheap ISL is no different. The only reason it has taken until now is the research into materials to create an ISL that 100% burns up on reentry.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/24/2021 10:49 pm
I want to point out I continually made the point that SpaceX could engineer them to a similar density as cubesats, in which case the fairing volume was fine, but most people dismissed me.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mn on 01/25/2021 02:29 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/25/2021 02:36 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mn on 01/25/2021 02:54 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/25/2021 03:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mn on 01/25/2021 03:57 am
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.

Some info on supposed current prices:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/en7dtx/comment/fdx379d?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/25/2021 04:17 am
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.

Some info on supposed current prices:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/en7dtx/comment/fdx379d?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

Backs up what I said:
Quote
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.

I think it's quite possible SpaceX will be using a mix until they stamp down the cost even lower than what Mynaric can do.

It's funny. TMF made all sorts of claims about how they can't do lasers or even RF links without totally changing their deployment style, etc. The permaskeptics keep being proven wrong on this. I would advise people to stop listening to them.

EDIT: and the order talked about in the link was $1.9 million, considered for maybe 2 satellites... but could’ve been for this 10, for all we know. In either case, it is pretty cheap.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/25/2021 04:37 am
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.

For me the excitement comes from the feeling that they're on the cusp of large scale deployment of laser ISLs. It's not backed up by anything concrete, but it seems to me there's no need to equip all 10 satellites with laser ISLs if they have not started at least mass production trials. They did some testing last September, if they wanted more testing they can just use 2 to 3 satellites, why all 10? Add to this the fact that they're changing Starlink mission names starting from a few launches from now, it just gives the inkling this is the start of ISL deployment, similar to the feeling I get when they launched 60 v0.9 satellites in 2019. Were there evidence that Starlink satellites are cheap back then? No. But when they casually throw up 60 of them, you get the feeling they have a good handle of the costs.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/25/2021 05:08 am
In the early days they may get like 80% of the benefit of ISLs that f they only put them on 10% of their satellites. Cover oceans, etc. they already have ground stations in place, so the repeater mode works well for most customers, but some are far from where a ground station is.
Eventually they’ll want them on all or most of their satellites, but it’s not essential right now. And they can expand their market drastically at low cost if they add ISLs to some fraction of their fleet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: daavery on 01/25/2021 05:11 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353574169288396800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353574169288396800)  only polar get laser comms this year
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: schaban on 01/25/2021 12:28 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353574169288396800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353574169288396800)  only polar get laser comms this year
I 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cdebuhr on 01/25/2021 01:19 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353574169288396800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353574169288396800)  only polar get laser comms this year
I 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/25/2021 01:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 01/25/2021 03:39 pm
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.

Economies of scale can get very odd for aerospace items that dgo from production rates of 3-4 per year to thousands per year.

It may cost 100 million to buy a dozen laser interlinks, and 200 million to make 5000 per year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jansen on 01/25/2021 03:48 pm
Crossposted:
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/25/2021 04:14 pm
Crossposted:
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.
Note that v0.9 designation is only for sats conducting  experimentation/testing and  v1.x designation is only for operational sats.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 01/25/2021 05:55 pm
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/25/2021 05:56 pm
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.

The nature of the polar orbits and the customers that would use those satellites make it a perfect place to first deploy and test the ISLs. 

After the SARah 1 launch then maybe the booster at Vandenberg will start putting up the polar satellites.  They can launch from the Cape, but they have a very busy manifest on the east coast for 2021.  Using the west coast helps take off some pressure and get the job done.

They also mentioned in the webcast they are staffing up the west coast crew.  That makes it sound like a sustained launch operations on the west coast for Stalink and DOD.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rekt1971 on 01/25/2021 05:59 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/25/2021 07:35 pm
The v0.9 part of the tweet really confused me. v0.9 for the lasers finally makes sense.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: bstrong on 01/25/2021 07:43 pm
I don't see star trackers on these sats. Are they integrated with the ISLs now?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/25/2021 07:48 pm
I don't see star trackers on these sats. Are they integrated with the ISLs now?

They're next to the ISL, same place they've always been
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/25/2021 07:49 pm
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
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 01/25/2021 07:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/25/2021 07:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/25/2021 08:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 01/25/2021 10:05 pm
https://www.twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1353830516617863168

Quote
SpaceX says it plans to increase Starlink's download speeds from ~100 Mbps currently to 10 Gbps in the future:
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/25/2021 10:26 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/26/2021 08:10 am
Apologies, as I’m sure this question will have been addressed somewhere already. With regard to the 10 polar orbit satellites, I read claims that these will now ensure internet coverage in the polar regions, but surely 10 satellites are not nearly sufficient to cover both poles fully at all times? Assuming an even spread, these 10 satellites will be about 4000km apart. Meaning huge gaps in coverage once one has passed overhead and over the horizon. And that’s just in the narrow band of territory directly below the orbital path. Which passes over the actual poles sure, but surely not over all of the arctic circle.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: MechE31 on 01/26/2021 12:37 pm
https://www.twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1353830516617863168

Quote
SpaceX says it plans to increase Starlink's download speeds from ~100 Mbps currently to 10 Gbps in the future:

That slide was taken from their FCC filing which can be found here:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=3683193

They threw some solid jabs at Amazon in there. Including an entire slide on Amazon stifling competition. Some quotes:
"Path of obstruction, 30 meetings to oppose SpaceX, NO meetings to authorize its own system"

"No instance in more than two decades where commission interpreted the law as Amazon suggested"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 01/26/2021 01:33 pm
https://www.twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1353830516617863168

Quote
SpaceX says it plans to increase Starlink's download speeds from ~100 Mbps currently to 10 Gbps in the future:

Will be interesting to see what the capability of the network is when Starship comes... I.E. when it has tens of thousands of laser-interlinked satellites with hundreds of gigabits of throughput each.

It will be pretty obvious very quickly that constellations powered by expendable or even partially expendable launch services will not be able to compete even if they wanted to. Not even a little bit.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/26/2021 02:33 pm
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?

You're not missing anything.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 01/26/2021 04:59 pm
Quote
SpaceX 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??
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 01/26/2021 05:01 pm
Quote
SpaceX 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 optical.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/26/2021 05:27 pm
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.

Spatial multiplexing for the win!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/26/2021 09:00 pm
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.

Spatial multiplexing for the win!
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.

So it could be tried out on V1 sats in a extreme limited cases but likely such bandwidth increases would not be offered until V2 deployment on Starship starts.

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.

Added: Then you would only have to be able to increase the UT capability to track 20 and communicate with 10 to get to the full 10Gbps rate. It is not that far fetch and may take just a few years to get such a UT that is cheap enough for the common user.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/26/2021 09:12 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/26/2021 09:31 pm
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?
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: macpacheco on 01/27/2021 07:38 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LiamS on 01/27/2021 12:12 pm
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.
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.

I agree that it would be benificial, I would propose that they are more likely to partner with one of the big tech companies, of which I could see 3 being viable partners. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, its unlikely to be amazon, because of the direct competition (their competing sat network), and google doesn't have the geographic diversity in data centers that microsoft has.

spacex and microsoft are already partnering on some offerings with microsofts new 'azure space' product line.

I could certainly see it being benificial to all parties if microsoft allowed spacex to put ground stations on the roof of all their data centres, spacex get easy access to high speed connectivity to the wider world, and much better physical security for their ground stations, and microsoft gets an edge with their azure space product, with lower response times to their own data centre offerings compared to competitors because the ground stations are on premises.



Heres an image of microsofts current and near future data centers, while there are certainly gaps in coverage if all of these locations became ground stations, it certainly gives them a credible start and eases ground station roll out significantly, no need to worry about site security, power redundancy, internet backhaul redundancy, having someone on call that can turn the control system off and on again if needed, etc, etc
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 01/27/2021 01:56 pm
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?
  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 enormously

This has been a compelling reason for rural people to be all in on Starlink from the get go. The more rural you are, the more bandwidth you get.

I haven't done the calculations to determine how well it works for edge cases (like me, I live in a rural area, but 20 miles away is the epicenter of an MSA with 1M people in it total... am I far enough out in the country to get the really crazy speeds or is my "spot" mostly soaked up by the people 20 miles west of me?)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/27/2021 02:06 pm
One major point of SpaceX having their own fast and super low latency backbone is providers will be falling over themselves to peer to Starlink rather than the other way around.

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. ;)

It’s not really required. Radio is like 30GHz, infrared gives you 300THz which is 4 orders of magnitude more, and vacuum UV gives you 3Petahetz, another order of magnitude.

And there are not any commercial optical transceivers that operate in the UV like that. There are fairly fundamental reasons why it’s harder than IR. BUT it *is* one theoretical advantage that being in space gives you over the ground. A single channel can carry a lot more information than in optical fiber on the ground. (Of course, you could just use multiple fibers...)

In the long term, maybe Earth to Mars links will use vacuum UV. It would allow not only a Petabit/s possible bandwidth per channel, but also allow spatial multiplexing with modest aperture sizes which would be harder with the much longer wavelengths of IR.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/27/2021 02:09 pm
The more popular Starlink is, the less Starlink will need to peer at all. Data centers will just have their own Starlink terminals.

What will really be interesting is when you’ll have orbital data enters communicating to Starlink directly with lasers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 01/27/2021 02:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/27/2021 02:33 pm
Take the same aperture size as radio, and optical will be factor of 100 times smaller spot diameter, 1/10000th the spot area. Vacuum UV improves that to 1000 and one millionth, respectively. So not a major concern. Sensitive optics could be damaged by a tight beam, but you can just avoid that like SpaceX is planning to do for GSO radio birds. (Also, very small chance of hitting anything even with thousands of satellites.... but over time it could eventually happen, but most sensitive optics are also fairly well shielded because of sunlight, so the laser and the optics would have to be pointing right at each other at the same moment for that to occur.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/27/2021 03:00 pm
At near IR wavelengths (~1000nm) and 10cm aperture, the spot size will be 10m at 1000km distant.
At radio 30GHz, same aperture size, it’ll be 100km in size. At UV, about 1-2m in size.

Of course, pointing requirements get hard for optical and UV, and radio would just use a bigger aperture.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 01/28/2021 04:32 pm
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.

Sensitive optical telescopes, either pointing up or pointing down, will have rather narrow fields of view.   So any optical interference would only happen if something were in the field of view and pointing it's laser directly at the sat, which seems very, very unlikely .

Comm sats won't be above astronomical telescopes orbits (and these scopes are by definition pointing up) so interference seems impossible in this case.

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/28/2021 05:22 pm
And a good reason to use vacuum UV is it is totally blocked by the atmosphere so terrestrial optics are not impacted.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Redclaws on 01/28/2021 05:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 01/28/2021 06:00 pm
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.

According to this highly scientific resource (https://what-if.xkcd.com/13/), even a cheap laser pointer aimed all the way at the moon would still cover way less than half of it. Laser beams are really, really straight.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/29/2021 05:50 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/spacex-plans-next-generation-starlink-satellites-with-1000-launched.html

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/30/2021 01:20 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Vanspace on 01/30/2021 04:34 am
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

Perhaps that should read "Legitimate downward pointing observation sats" and "Legitimate comm sats" "in normal use".

I am quite sure that a "comm sat" owned by an intelligence agency is gonna stick its laser up into the aperture of a "Observation sat" owned by another intelligence agency at the earliest opportunity if it hasn't happened already. While not something to be used a lot, disabling a spy sat with complete plausible deniability and undetectable has obvious uses.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Starship_SpaceX on 01/30/2021 05:20 am
starlink V1.5?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 01/30/2021 06:22 am
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?

I'm pretty sure that they've had the ISLs under test in the 53ş plane for quite a while.  Each bird has its own orbital plane, but birds in neighboring planes are very similar to 53ş birds talking to birds in neighboring planes.  The angle slews around a little faster as they switch from ascending to descending anomalies, but I suspect that that's pretty easy to test just by testing out ISLs between birds a couple of planes apart.

I suspect that SpaceX will continue to use F9 for polar launches for quite a while, precisely to avoid the kerfuffle that a SuperHeavy flying the Cuban Dogleg would incur.  If they get to the point where they want to retire the F9, they can either build a pad at Vandy or go with an offshore platform (although it's pretty hard to beat Vandy unless there's a noise/blast restriction).

I'm still keenly interested in when there's going to be a real SuperHeavy pad at the Cape.  I think that there's a dogleg that'll get birds from BC to 53.xş while avoiding the Yucatan, but it's almost certainly giving up a lot of performance.  Using an F9 to get to all the 70+ş planes is OK for now, but hitting the FCC license drop-dead dates will be pretty exciting without Starship filling out the mid-latitude shells.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/30/2021 09:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 01/31/2021 11:36 pm
Something else I've been thinking about... Starship may make it economical to switch over to chemical propulsion.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 01/31/2021 11:39 pm
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.

My own personal guesses:

v1.5 will be upgraded birds with laser interlinks and 30-40gbps in throughput...maybe an increase in mass to ~300kg

v2.0 will be a completely new designed optimized for Starship. Would not be surprised for them to be 1500-2000kg each and have hundreds of GBps of throughput.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 02/01/2021 02:22 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: macpacheco on 02/01/2021 11:08 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 02/01/2021 06:41 pm
Something else I've been thinking about... Starship may make it economical to switch over to chemical propulsion.

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.
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.


More thrust might speed up 1, but not step 2. Roughing in some numbers, maybe shorten a roughly 90 day process to 60 says.


Still, overall it could be a good move. The ~$3k lost to launch costs would probably be more than made up in less expensive engines and propellant. Also, maybe smaller PV and less battery. Nice analysis.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 02/01/2021 06:56 pm
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.
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.)


Speculation is just that. Still, there is a certain attractiveness to a family of thrusters with common propellant and a range of sizes. We saw a 3/4 scale raptor. Got to wonder what sort of sub sub scale work was done on subsystems like igniter torches.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 02/01/2021 07:10 pm
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.
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.
Yes, you get it!


To amplify, a copper or fiber router is looking at a limited number of connections and deciding which connection best serves to 'route' to an end user. All this is at the IP level. A switch is a hard connection from one point to another. Think of Lilly Tomlin's Ernistne, and sub in MAC's for phone numbers. From the sats point of view this is the topology. One link. One customer.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 02/01/2021 08:15 pm
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.
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.
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.
Extrapolating this means worst-case 68W for 40Gbit full BGP and 32 ARM CPU cores, but 20W sounds more plausible.
List price for the firewall is $500, but the SoC inside costs just a fraction of that. Easy within the realm of SpaceX's capabilities.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 02/01/2021 08:56 pm
Phone was low so I had to end that reply.


Note that the customer is the the user terminal. That there may be several connections via WIFI beyond is irrelevant from the sats point of view. The routing for this would have been done at the ground station and all the sat needs to know is what MAC to send data to.


The physical topography is what layer two is all about. SL has a unique topography and will need a unique layer 2. Any beam may well have more than one UT in its footprint. It's hard to know exactly how this will be handled but I opt for time slicing rather than bandwidth wasting collisions.


The problem we've been having with characterizing this system is akin to the blind wise men describing an elephant by touch. Of course they describe it like a snake or whatever is closets in their experience. But in the end it is it's own unique physical thing. We can say it's a router or a switch or a hub. It has characteristics of all three but at the same time it has its own unique topology and will need a unique layer 2 to make it work.


Layer 2 will have to handle customer handoffs from one sat to another, a sats handoff from one ground station to another, and with ISL, something akin to routing and switching, but not quit either. Look up tables would be Mac's in one column and physical coordinates the other. With properly designed hardware and knowing it's own location, pointing a packet in the right direction (beam or ISL) would be more of a reflex than a calculated action. Call this routing or call it switching, whatever makes you happy. It's not quite either. It need not involve CPU and power sucking IP processing in any way. Keep the sats fast, simple and (eventually) inexpensive and do the harder stuff on the ground.


I herby coin the term Sroutching(c). This copyrighted name is royalty free for use on NSF.  8)


I think this scheme will scale up to interplanetary but I have to think about it. Might even scale up to Vernor Vinge's 'Net of a Million Lies'. (A Fire Upon the Derp)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 02/02/2021 10:58 pm
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.

Since I wrote what you responded to, I've come around to the idea that you may not want a full public IPv6 address for each UT.  However, I still think that the process that gets packets from the border gateway to the UT and vice versa is a lot more routing-like than it is switching-like.

You don't need a full BGP router with the full range of CIDR prefixes. Once you're inside the Starlink AS, everything will have one subnet mask, and the subnets will map geographically.

There are some tricky things still left to do.  For example, you'd like to have a flow with an external source address and a Starlink destination address routed to a gateway that's geographically close to the UT.  To do that, you need to have each gateway know which subnets are close to it, and advertise BGP summaries only for those routes.  But even then, all subnet masks are the same length inside the AS.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: sindark on 02/03/2021 01:49 am
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 02/03/2021 02:35 am
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DreamyPickle on 02/04/2021 11:34 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 02/04/2021 02:03 pm
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 addtional satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 02/04/2021 07:07 pm
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.

I suspect that this is why the SpaceX vs. Amazon rhetorical cold war has recently gone nuclear.  If the FCC approves moving the 1100km/53.8ş down to 540km/53.2ş, they're likely to approve the 570/70 modification and the rest of the 560/97.6 shell at the same time.  That gives SpaceX free rein to do the first 12,000 birds at their convenience.  If that happens, Kuiper could find a lot of the low-hanging fruit gone by the time they can even begin to deploy.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 02/05/2021 02:05 am
A couple news stories based on government filings.  After staying up until 2am for satellite deployment I'm too tired to read through them right now.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/spacex-could-serve-australian-external-islands-with-satellite-broadband-by-2022/
Quote
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."

filing attached, from:
committee filings (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/National_Capital_and_External_Territories/ETCommsInfra/Submissions)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 02/05/2021 02:07 am
[CNBC] SpaceX says its Starlink satellite internet service now has over 10,000 users (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/04/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-service-has-over-10000-users.html)

filing (also attached)
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1020316268311/Starlink%20Services%20LLC%20Application%20for%20ETC%20Designation.pdf

from https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=09-197&sort=date_disseminated,DESC
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/05/2021 02:45 am
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 02/05/2021 02:47 am
Viasat is capacity constrained in some areas now and is quite willing to let subscriber numbers drift down in favor of providing higher revenue plans and IFC capacity until the first Viasat 3 bird comes online next year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/05/2021 04:36 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tomness on 02/05/2021 09:16 pm
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.

HughesNet Customer here, more customers can go to Rural Fiber to Home , Cable TV and Leo Sat Internet the better. It's rough with limited access to high speed internet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kessdawg on 02/08/2021 09:17 pm
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)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 02/08/2021 09:35 pm
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)

Quote
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.

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......

 >:(
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/09/2021 11:33 am
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).

This is a very interesting question, I found only information that the Ku band is allocated for Space X. But did not see about Ka band .
https://spaceq.ca/the-government-grants-spacex-approval-for-its-starlink-service-in-canada/

TeleSat LEO received Ka-band frequency permits in Canada before Space X. And if Canada allocates the same Ka-band frequencies to Space X, it should indicate how the two companies will share them.
In the meantime, I have not found permission from Canada for the Ka-band frequencies, or applications from Space X for the placement of gateways in Canada. Have you seen applications for gateways in Canada?

An interesting situation may turn out: in Canada it will be possible to use StarLink terminals but not build gateways for it

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/09/2021 12:08 pm
https://twitter.com/adamklotz_/status/1358895404054695942

Quote
You can now order Starlink! Hopefully the price comes down for us 🇨🇦 soon though 😬 @elonmusk
twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1358964520522162176

Quote
It’s meant to be the same price in all countries. Only difference should be taxes & shipping.

https://twitter.com/rationaletienne/status/1358965914499231744

Quote
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.
   🥺
👉🏼 👈🏼

twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359024384200101888

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359026421012774915

Quote
Starlink is a staggeringly difficult technical & economic endeavor. However, if we don’t fail, the cost to end users will improve every year.

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359027355851841536

Quote
Once we can predict cash flow reasonably well, Starlink will IPO
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Maxium on 02/09/2021 06:41 pm
https://twitter.com/Satcom_Guru/status/1359168469061795840?s=20 (https://twitter.com/Satcom_Guru/status/1359168469061795840?s=20)
Quote
even with 12,000 satellites, even with the ability to concentrate coverage, Starlink is modeled to come up short to meet RDOF.

Here's the report:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10208168836021/FBA_LEO_RDOF_Assessment_Final_Report_20210208.pdf (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10208168836021/FBA_LEO_RDOF_Assessment_Final_Report_20210208.pdf)

It seems they're arguing that Starlink will not be able to deliver 100 Mbps performance for RDOF subscribers under peak hours.
To my understanding:
1. According to the same report, it's not really required by FCC, is it?
2. It's the future demand for higher bandwidth that is predicted to cause issue, but the assumption of 15.3~20.8 Mbps *peak hour average bandwidth per subscriber* by 2028 seems odd, especially it's probably an estimate including city&urban internet with higher bandwidth services.

Even if peak hour average bandwidth is ~20 Mbs, I don't understand how the "degradation in the allocated bandwidth" will necessarily translate into individual subscriber experiencing service degradation under 100 Mbps as the report implied. I don't have expertise in this, these are my honest questions.

*edit: typo
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/09/2021 07:20 pm
Hmmm...  That's strange.  A post of mine vanished.  Didn't think it was incendiary or anything.  Let me rephrase the substance.

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.

I think the terrestrial players are most concerned about Starlink not necessarily because of this RDOF round.  Rather, they look out and see that Starlink will be able to compete in the 1 Gbps tier in the next RDOF round and thereby win a large portion of $10 billion, or whatever that purse ends up being.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 02/09/2021 07:31 pm
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/09/2021 07:38 pm
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).

No, indeed I do not.  But the report apparently does.  In any event, as far as I know, there's no physics that absolutely holds the per satellite capacity to 17-23 Gbps.  Would love to be corrected on this.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 02/09/2021 07:54 pm
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)

Quote
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.

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......

 >:(
Got notification of availability yesterday. I'm at 39.97N.


*******

Starlink is now available in limited supply in your service area.


During beta, users can expect to see data speeds vary from 50Mb/s to 150Mb/s and latency from 20ms to 40ms in most locations 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. For latency, we expect to achieve 16ms to 19ms by summer 2021.

To check availability for your location, visit Starlink.com (http://www.starlink.com/)and re-enter your email and service address. If available, you will be immediately redirected to the Starlink order page.


Availability is limited so orders must be completed within 15 minutes of landing on the order page. If you are not able to order at this time, the Starlink team will continue to send updates as more capacity becomes available.


Thank you for your interest in Starlink and your continued support! 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LouScheffer on 02/09/2021 09:56 pm
Quote
even with 12,000 satellites, even with the ability to concentrate coverage, Starlink is modeled to come up short to meet RDOF.
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.

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.

 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 02/10/2021 03:33 am

The biggest hole in their argument, to me, is what would drive this increased bandwidth.
Very poorly coded web pages, ads and spyware.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: archae86 on 02/10/2021 03:48 am
Got notification of availability yesterday. I'm at 39.97N.


*******

Starlink is now available in limited supply in your service area.
I'm even farther south, in Albuquerque, NM at 35.17N
Whlie I did register my interest months ago, I got no message.  Instead I responded to posts here yesterday and visited the Starlink site directly.  It responded to my address by allowing me to place an order against future availability.  For my location the availability forecast text was "Starlink will begin offering service in your area beginning mid to late 2021. Orders will be fulfilled on a first-come, first-served basis."

They took my credit card and my $99, so now I wait, and I ponder whether it makes any sense for me to do this.

My first thought on first-come first-served was that I should get in line early, as I live at the edge of an urban area of density far higher than they can serve.  My second thought is that even for folks on low density rural areas the initial supply of User Terminals may limit service offering to a much lower number than the satellite capacity could handle within a few months.

Any way, signing up now is a way to support SpaceX in general and StarLink in particular.  I seriously doubt their marginal cost to handle one new order now, and one refund request later, is anywhere near $99.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: octavo on 02/10/2021 06:00 am

My brother and I both placed orders from South Africa - Deposits have been taken and service availability is projected to be 2022.

I live in an urban area with good fibre, but I'm curious to see if Starlink will improve online gaming for me. Most hosts are in the US or Europe and my pings tend to be in the 100s of ms.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/10/2021 06:35 am
It is already documented that Starlink plans include increasing speed from 100 Mbps currently to 10 Gbps in the future. I presume that is enough for someone to watch all their HD channels at once, no?

So much for the report.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rebel44 on 02/10/2021 08:11 am
I work in telecommunications (but my employer isn't likely to be affected by Starlink, so I have no stake either way) and IMO that study is complete nonsense.

The projected customer data use growth is significantly higher than what is actually planned for by major telco companies

Throughput/Satellite is unreasonably low for 2028

A lot of speculation - always taken in the worst possible way for Starlink.

It wouldn't surprise me if the conclusion was written at the start and arguments were written to fit that...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jansen on 02/10/2021 11:11 pm
SpaceX has just been granted authorization to operate Starlink onboard ASDS at port and at sea.

Application:
https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=259301

Grant:
https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=267270
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OxCartMark on 02/18/2021 12:59 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/18/2021 01:43 am
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?

To put that in perspective, that is roughly 72 kwh a month, depending on your rates $10-$15 a month. Significantly more than most routers,  but 10% of the service costs. All internet burns electrons that you have to pay for.

Also, no one says you cannot turn it off when not home or sleeping.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 02/18/2021 02:05 am
Are you using Consumers or DTE? At DTE's rates 100w on 24/7 would cost <$10/month, and the heat of the dish should help snow mitigation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 02/18/2021 02:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 02/19/2021 06:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 02/19/2021 06:12 pm
Quote
even with 12,000 satellites, even with the ability to concentrate coverage, Starlink is modeled to come up short to meet RDOF.
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.

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.

 

3.6 Mbps continuous is 1.2 TB/mo per subscriber. Comcast has a data cap at that level, so by this argument it would seem they shouldn't qualify for RDOF either.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 02/22/2021 12:12 pm
SpaceX is recruiting bilingual Customer Support Associate for Starlink:

Customer Support Associate, Bilingual French - 3rd shift (https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/5073427002?gh_jid=5073427002)

Quote
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

Customer Support Associate, Bilingual German - 3rd shift (https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/5073432002?gh_jid=5073432002)

Customer Support Associate, Bilingual Greek - 3rd shift (https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/5073350002?gh_jid=5073350002)

Customer Support Associate, Bilingual Italian - 3rd shift (https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/5073414002?gh_jid=5073414002)

Customer Support Associate, Bilingual Spanish - 3rd shift (https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/5073348002?gh_jid=5073348002)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/22/2021 02:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2021 08:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: 2megs on 02/23/2021 01:49 pm
Unencrypted GPS was once restricted too. I expect that once the primary use of a technology is for millions of consumers to watch cartoons on Netflix, the regulatory classification will catch up to the reality.

But it's possible that, regardless of regulations, SpaceX themselves wants their support based out of the U.S. right now. While SpaceX is trying to initially bootstrap their customer support system,  colocating in Hawthorne would make looping in engineering and management a lot easier.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/23/2021 02:16 pm
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.

I would have thought so, but all of the consumer support hiring so far has been within the ITAR perimeter.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/23/2021 06:58 pm
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.

I would have thought so, but all of the consumer support hiring so far has been within the ITAR perimeter.
Well, it IS simpler. That may change as Starlink gets larger and they need access to a larger hiring pool of customer support personnel.

There are literally tens millions of Americans who speak both English and Spanish very well, and millions would easily qualify for a customer support role with training even with strict ITAR/EAR requirements.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 02/23/2021 08:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 02/24/2021 05:35 am
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.

The only thing I can think of that might make the ITAR people nervous would be giving a non-US tech access to the OAM&P system, even for fairly mundane provisioning and ops tasks.  There should be about ninety different ways to firewall them from anything even remotely like the TT&C system, but one should rightly be worried about what a skilled hacker could do with even tech credentials.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2021 02:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/25/2021 12:35 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1364748430883631111

Quote
You might see much higher download speeds on Starlink at times. Testing system upgrades.

twitter.com/teslaownerssv/status/1364748685393813507

Quote
When will it come to the Bay? Still end of 2021

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1364749052626231296

Quote
Probably mid year, but Starlink is really meant for those who are least served. Bay usually has great Internet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/25/2021 06:33 am
twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1364748803664928768

Quote
Ever consider a mini Starlink designed around portability?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1364806444726448129

Quote
Sounds like a good idea
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 02/25/2021 09:29 am
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.

99% of the support calls will be "My package didn't arrive", "I can't find ordering/billing/cancelation on your website", "My obstructed dish can't get good speeds" and "Am I on that publicly available outage map?". I doubt even last level support with every clearance would ever need access to sensitive systems.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 02/27/2021 09:36 am
Im located in northern Germany and got an invite on the February 19th. I registered for the beta program, because my parents in law had a terrible internet connection in the country side. However, since I am there only a weekend or so every few weeks, I cant really participate in the beta testing of the system efficiently. Also they got a new connection that upgrades from terrible to acceptable, so I cant even justify the expense any more. Im a bit sad, but one has to balance family with expensive toys and this time, the toys lost.

Anyway, Im telling this story to show that Starlink seems to be close in northern Germany. So the regulatory issues might be solved soon. Also coverage will soon be available at 51deg North, which is beyond the Canadian boarder in terms of latitude.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LouScheffer on 02/27/2021 12:56 pm
[...] 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 02/27/2021 01:52 pm
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.

There's also a Maintenance Technician (Starlink) - Day/Night Shift position, which mentioned they'll do maintenance on "SMT line equipment, epoxy dispensing printers, conveyor systems, thermal chambers, test reliability chambers, and vacuum systems", sounds to me they're not only assemble the user terminal at Hawthorne, they're also mounting chips on the PCB there.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: theprotobe on 02/27/2021 03:01 pm
Starlink is now being offered in the Philippines to interested users. Source is down below and talk from a local discord server. Delivery will be in 2022. Keep in mind that the Philippines is a very low latitude country, and is close to the equator.
https://www.yugatech.com/internet-telecoms/you-can-now-reserve-a-starlink-satellite-internet-in-the-philippines/#sthash.TYXTHGaj.dpbs
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: bstrong on 03/02/2021 06:22 am
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.

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/5111363002
https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/5111172002

Quote
To keep up with global demand, SpaceX is breaking ground on a new, state of the art manufacturing facility in Austin, TX.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/02/2021 09:27 pm
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.

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/5111363002
https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/5111172002

Quote
To keep up with global demand, SpaceX is breaking ground on a new, state of the art manufacturing facility in Austin, TX.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 03/04/2021 02:04 am
Latest summary of fight over 12GHz: Dish tries to disrupt SpaceX’s Starlink plans as companies fight at FCC (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/spacex-slams-dishs-baseless-attempt-to-block-starlinks-fcc-funding/)

Quote
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."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: klod on 03/09/2021 10:40 am
I have noob question. Does dish move while internet is online. Or it moves only while setup?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 03/09/2021 12:04 pm
I have noob question. Does dish move while internet is online. Or it moves only while setup?
Only for setup.
During use, the beam is steered electronically, solid state.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 03/09/2021 01:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 03/10/2021 03:19 am
New head of FCC seems pretty friendly to Starlink:

https://twitter.com/technology/status/1369098222204039170

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Semmel on 03/10/2021 03:31 pm
Just got an email :) Welcome to Germany, Starlink. You are very necessary! :)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 03/11/2021 02:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 03/11/2021 08:12 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 03/12/2021 02:10 am
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 03/12/2021 02:28 am
Critics take aim at SpaceX’s Starlink, Amazon’s Project Kuiper and other satellite constellations (https://www.geekwire.com/2021/critics-take-aim-spacex-starlink-amazon-kuiper-satellite-constellations/)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 03/12/2021 06:13 am
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...

So that's the power to both the wifi router and the PoE to the dish, along with the losses through the DC power supply.  That seems to put the dish itself substantially under 100W, which makes it a very standard PoE type 4 (4 pairs, 100W from the PSE side), and maybe even type 3 (4 pairs, 60W from the PSE side).

I wonder why they're so intent on supplying their own cable?  Maybe they're just trying to minimize tech support calls for when people try to use hundreds of yards of non-weatherized Cat 6 and they're surprised when it doesn't work.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 03/12/2021 05:45 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 03/12/2021 07:06 pm
 I wouldn't be surprised if there was less than a 15 watt power input difference between full transmit and no transmit. The actual rf to the antenna is probably not much more than 5 watts and that would be lower for a high elevation, good air path. The simplest control is output power being inversely proportional to receive power, but the satellite could set the dish output based on uphill receive strength. The dish phasing/steering electronics might use more than the rf output.
 It's hard to tell, because there's about a hundred different sets of numbers from experts who have figured it out.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/12/2021 07:26 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/12/spacex-prepares-for-air-force-test-of-starlink-satellite-internet.html

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 03/12/2021 07:29 pm
The info on the aircraft test is old.  The new filing just adds testing with a ground vehicle.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.msg2082506#msg2082506
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tulse on 03/12/2021 07:52 pm
Another piece of novel(?) info is that the antenna for the aircraft will be built by Ball, and not Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 03/12/2021 07:58 pm
Another piece of novel(?) info is that the antenna for the aircraft will be built by Ball, and not Starlink.

That's also part of the info from last May
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: bodhiandphysics on 03/12/2021 08:56 pm
Another piece of novel(?) info is that the antenna for the aircraft will be built by Ball, and not Starlink.

It's also interesting that Spacex is doing the aero engineering of the antenna in house...  I mean obviously Spacex has a lot of  good aeronautical engineering, but I'm surprised the Air force is letting Spacex touch an F-15
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 03/12/2021 09:01 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 03/12/2021 10:35 pm
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?

Or turn it off at night and when you don't need it, a cold start only takes a few minutes.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/12/2021 10:45 pm
The info on the aircraft test is old.  The new filing just adds testing with a ground vehicle.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.msg2082506#msg2082506
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.

Test Example:
A aircraft of truck in Alaska with a UT connects and data is routed sat to sat to a peer UT in the west coast US at some base location. Data gathered is bandwidth (bit rates), error rate (dropped packets rate), round trip latency, Up time vs theoretical possible Up time. Since these 10 in a partial coverage of a single SSO plane Up time will not be continuous. An actual vs theoretical (mathematical model) shows how good the link margins are in reality vs the theoretical.

This data would give sufficient info to make an informed decision on furthering possible contracts with Starlink for global data services.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 03/12/2021 11:17 pm

The Key thing that the AF wanted to validate...

The testing being discussed has absolutely nothing to do with ISL.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 03/13/2021 05:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 03/13/2021 06:36 pm
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 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2021 07:23 pm
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 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 that mobile terminals will have a low power mode.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 03/13/2021 11:04 pm
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 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 that mobile terminals will have a low power mode.
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/13/2021 11:58 pm
Have I just missed it, or has the FUD around malfunctioning Starlink sats all but vanished in recent months?

The percentage of deorbiting satellites was all the rage during the early days when v0.9 was being decommissioned, and detractors doggedly continued to claim an impending dead satellite disaster during the first few v1.0 launches, with something like a 5% failure rate being extrapolated for the entire network, based on early prototype performance.

Given the furore at the time, one would think that this “catastrophic threat” would by now have grown exponentially, as more and more launches have blasted into orbit, yet here we are, with upwards of 1200 Starlink sats in orbit and the controversy seems to have quietly and somewhat sheepishly shown itself the door.

Of course, not to break their stride, the detractors just moved onto the next FUD-worthy topic, which was the “insurmountable cost” of user terminals.

But I think it is worth highlighting how silly the malfunctioning satellite concern turned out to be, 20 launches later.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 03/14/2021 12:47 am
Have I just missed it, or has the FUD around malfunctioning Starlink sats all but vanished in recent months?

Still comes up regularly in the FCC filings surrounding the license modification request.  The failure rate has decreased a lot from the early launches.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/14/2021 12:13 pm
Whats the rate.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 03/16/2021 08:03 pm
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 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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 03/16/2021 08:07 pm
Whats the rate.
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.
A brief look at the tracking thread and it looks more like one or two satellites lost per launch.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 03/16/2021 08:12 pm
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 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.
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?
Depends. Is that 220Wp, or actual 220W?
In The Netherlands a rule of thumb is that a 1Wp panel will produce 0.85kWh/year. For 1400Wp that results in about 135W on average. 100W for starlink will eat up a whole lot of that power, if left on 24/7.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: indaco1 on 03/16/2021 10:17 pm
That's an average. Much less in winter or when overcast.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 03/16/2021 11:29 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/18/2021 05:31 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-spacex-sign-joint-spaceflight-safety-agreement

Quote
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


edit/gongora:  The agreement: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa-spacex_starlink_agreement_final.pdf
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Vultur on 03/18/2021 06:21 pm
1200 satellites is pretty amazing. And it seems like it's happening really fast.

(What percentage of all satellites are Starlink now?)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 03/18/2021 06:28 pm
Well that solar has to power two fridges, a freezer, a convection oven, induction hob, lights, instruments and nav gear, autopilot, pumps, water maker, toilets, washing machine, hot water maker, inverters, radios and on an on.

100W would make it the second biggest power draw so anything they can do to reduce it would be great for anyone living "off the grid". Same applies to RVs and cabins in the mountains.

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 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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Scintillant on 03/18/2021 07:29 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Vultur on 03/19/2021 02:09 am
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

Thank you.

Wow! That is pretty incredible.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: david1971 on 03/19/2021 02:58 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/19/2021 03:07 am
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 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 that mobile terminals will have a low power mode.
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!
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.

I suspect variations in transmit power (and bitrate) are also possible. Just doesn't make sense for their main uses right now.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Scintillant on 03/19/2021 04:55 am
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?
718 of the currently operational Starlinks went up on B1049 and B1051 (which launched a total of 775 Starlinks).

13 launches * 60/launch (less 5 rideshare sats) = 775 went up. 775 - 10 v1.0 failures - 47 v0.9 deorbits = 718 currently active.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 03/19/2021 07:15 am
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 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 that mobile terminals will have a low power mode.
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!
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.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 03/19/2021 07:34 am
So if correct that means that using Starlink on a moving platform will always use more power as it continues to search and realign.

More sats in place will help reduce but not eliminate this a little I guess.

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 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 that mobile terminals will have a low power mode.
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!
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.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 03/19/2021 11:59 pm
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)

Quote
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 (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)
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.


An agreement might include 'rules of the road' that share maneuvering responsibilities, sort of like precedence
at a 4way stop. Mostly wouldn't be needed but every once in a very great while a situation will crop up where an avoidance maneuver would force a sat into another bad situation or one sat might be freshly dead. Then there is all that junk to be dodged. Everybody acts as if the other body will do nothing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 03/21/2021 01:51 am
Overview piece from WSJ about Starlink and other constellations: Elon Musk and Amazon Are Battling to Put Satellite Internet in Your Backyard (https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-and-amazon-are-battling-to-put-satellite-internet-in-your-backyard-11616212827)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 03/25/2021 01:53 am
From 3/16/2021 filing:

Quote
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.

Quote
Generally, 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 03/25/2021 10:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 03/26/2021 12:28 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Vultur on 03/26/2021 12:52 am
The Wikipedia article says the Starlink thrusters use krypton as propellant. Isn't xenon the usual choice? Is this because of cost?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cuddihy on 03/26/2021 12:56 am
yes.
Quote
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/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Fizrock on 03/26/2021 05:05 am
Pretty spectacular angle of the S2 reentry from Starlink L-17. 
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/mdgdxh/gif_of_the_lightsmeteorsatellite/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/26/2021 06:35 pm
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?
When did you get the unit?
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Vultur on 03/26/2021 10:13 pm
yes.
Quote
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/

Cool, thanks!

Had that (krypton as propellant) been done before?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/26/2021 10:33 pm
yes.
Quote
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/

Cool, thanks!

Had that (krypton as propellant) been done before?

Not much of a reason to. To fuel a GEO comsat only costs a few million dollars. Xenon is higher density (more fuel, smaller/lighter tanks), the Xenon atom is both heavier and easier to ionize and it is easier to keep liquified. One advantage to krypton, related to its lighter mass, it should be easier to accelerate to higher speeds given its lower atomic mass.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: archae86 on 03/27/2021 01:42 am
Regarding Krypton choice, somewhere I think I read that the world supply would have been challenged by SpaceX demand had they attempted to use Xenon.  Aside from being much cheaper, apparently Krypton presents much less of a sourcing challenge.  Satellite use of Xenon (not by SpaceX) is cited as the dominant driver of usage expansion in recent business press articles.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mpusch on 03/27/2021 03:59 am
Are you sure on that? Couple articles saying that 20 million liters a year currently produced.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/27/2021 04:15 am
Are you sure on that? Couple articles saying that 20 million liters a year currently produced.

each liter is only 5.9 grams.

20,000,000 * 5.9 grams = 118000000 grams = 118,000 kg =118 t. Anybody have any idea how much fuel is in each satellite?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 03/27/2021 04:27 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/27/2021 04:46 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mpusch on 03/27/2021 05:52 am
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.

Definitely not making an argument here. Totally get it. Understand the volume conversion now.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Vultur on 03/27/2021 07:57 am
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.

Yeah, that's why I was wondering... xenon is pretty rare so it might be a limit if you  wanted to use electric propulsion on a really large scale. So I was wondering if they could really just swap out the gas with basically the same type thruster.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/27/2021 11:30 am
I may be wrong...

But the difference between argon/krypton/xenon is that xenon is easier to ionize than krypton and krypton easier than argon.
So less energy to create your mass stream you are accelerating.
Not sure the difference in exit velocity makes a difference in an ion engine like it does with chemical propulsion.

Now a bottle to hold 3kg of "fuel" will be bigger with the lighter fuel because of PV=nRT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster#Energy_efficiency
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jak Kennedy on 03/27/2021 12:13 pm
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?
When did you get the unit?
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 don't think the antenna has to reposition at a fixed location it just tries to find the best dish angle to allow for obstructions and satellite azimuths which may change over a long time period. ie hours or days. It probably loses lock for a few minutes if moved while it works out how to adjust the phased antenna timing which is probably precalculated and not computed on the fly.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 03/27/2021 12:56 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 03/27/2021 03:10 pm
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.

SpaceX might surprise me, but I think the commercially available mobile Starlink will have much the same limitations as presently commercially available GSO satellite -- it's only going to be operation when parked, and then you are going to have to park somewhere which gives a good sky view. And honestly it needs a bigger sky view than geo-stationary does, which if you can see the "unmoving" satellite through any gap in the trees or buildings then you are good.

And by commercially available I mean to the general public. I could see military and business commercial (trucking and shipping, for instance) getting a much more expensive real time gimballing version.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/27/2021 07:02 pm
It doesn't need to gimbal. Just have an active sufficiently accurate over a short period IMU device that allows for real time calculation and adjustment of the phase array angles without going through the detailed calibration for attitude to the sats in orbit. It already does a continuous adjustment of the phase array angle to track a specific sat or sats to maintain the connection. It just needs to add to the calculation for settings an IMU data input plus some GPS data possibly as well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jak Kennedy on 03/27/2021 07:08 pm
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.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/12/spacex-prepares-for-air-force-test-of-starlink-satellite-internet.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/27/2021 08:18 pm
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.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/12/spacex-prepares-for-air-force-test-of-starlink-satellite-internet.html
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 03/27/2021 08:49 pm
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.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/12/spacex-prepares-for-air-force-test-of-starlink-satellite-internet.html
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.
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/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/28/2021 12:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 03/29/2021 11:06 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Vultur on 03/30/2021 05:48 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: MechE31 on 03/30/2021 12:29 pm
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?

They most likely won't be profitable for a while as they continue building, launching and develop of future sats including ISL. This is a situation like a lot of tech companies, they could probably stop spending money today and make quite a bit of money, but they're going to continue to invest in the company for long term profits.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 03/30/2021 06:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/30/2021 11:04 pm
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.
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).

A BTW 1500 sats is enough to support up to 3 million subscribers but would need a lot of Gateways. So number of working Gateways may be more of limit on number of subscribers for a while. But when ISL is implemented then the efficiency (average number of subscribers that a Gateway supports) of the Gateways will increase rapidly allowing the high subscriber numbers to be more easily supported.

The problem is cash flow. But it is complicated by it not being steady state in either the revenue or in the expenditures. Once past this point of cash flow equilibrium. Revenues will increase faster than expenditures. Meaning even a continuation of expansion of capabilities at a rapid rate excess cash flow will be generated. What most refer to as profit.

There are a lot of associated problems.
1) Increasing the UT production rate which requires up front expenditures for the facilities and manufacturing tooling.
2) Hiring and training Customer support personnel.

So the point at which equilibrium is reached is actually an idealistic concept. Because as equilibrium is about to be reached subscriber prices could be lowered to create a more wider market for the services or because to make the service more competitive... Also greater expenditures may be decided to expand the rate of capabilities faster. Many things can happen between now and 1.3 million subscribers to change where the equilibrium point is.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Vultur on 03/31/2021 12:15 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 03/31/2021 12:25 am
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.

We live about 30 miles SW of Detroit and have the non-choice of paying through our teeth for Comca$t's poor service or slow as mud AT&T DSL.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Vultur on 03/31/2021 12:56 am
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".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 03/31/2021 02:13 am
Makes sense. So will the "initial" 1500 (or whatever) satellites be enough to offer 'full' service (ie, always enough satellites overhead) in those areas?

They should be enough for most of the US.  Some latitude ranges will need to wait for more satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 03/31/2021 03:11 am
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".
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/01/2021 07:01 pm
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".
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.
Yes.

The primary problem is not number of sats in a plane but the number of orbital planes filled with sats. Such that with 1440 sats the single inclination multiple filled orbital planes at the equator would show almost a square between the sats in a plane and the nearest in the next plane over. This goes to show support that redundancies at the lower Latitudes (<30 degrees) will have less and less number of visible sats above the horizon at any one time. Such that at the equator there may just be 2 to four sats that can be connected to. Right now there is only 1 or more just occasionally available because not enough planes are populated with sats. Just currently a little more than half the needed orbital planes. Even though there is ~1320 sats on orbit only about 800 have reached their orbital operational positions and are fully operational with respect to normal Starlink user availability.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Star One on 04/02/2021 07:44 am
Interesting to read how Starlink could interlink with a platform like the RQ-180 using laser communication.

Quote
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.

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 04/02/2021 01:25 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/02/2021 03:25 pm
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?
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.
 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/02/2021 03:40 pm
Interesting to read how Starlink could interlink with a platform like the RQ-180 using laser communication.

Quote
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.

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
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Star One on 04/02/2021 06:55 pm
Interesting to read how Starlink could interlink with a platform like the RQ-180 using laser communication.

Quote
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.

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
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.
I wonder if the USAF has trialed laser communications with a high flying platform like the U-2.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 04/02/2021 10:18 pm
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).

What are the operating costs (cost of service) of the network that you have accepted? In the Morgen Stanley report, they are taken in the amount of 30% to 20%...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 04/03/2021 02:25 am
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?

The Starlink app can help you check for obstructions
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 04/03/2021 02:41 am
There was an earlier discussion about Starlink solar panels, but was there any resolution as to who makes Starlink solar panels?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZChris13 on 04/03/2021 11:10 am
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?
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.
 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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Danderman on 04/03/2021 01:34 pm
I am facing more or less to the north, and the north pole is the closest geographic pole. I have a great view of the northern sky up to maybe 80 degrees elevation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 04/04/2021 10:59 pm
Interesting to read how Starlink could interlink with a platform like the RQ-180 using laser communication.

Quote
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.

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
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.

Er, the bandwidth will run out due to lack of terminals on the sat side of things though, since it's generally 1-to-1 comms and there are very few terminals on the sats. Well, unless you cheat like Facebook was doing with their Aquila drone, and using a hemisphere of fluorescing fibers as the receiver, which lets you multiplex receive provided you somehow timeshared the receiver. I suppose you could do the same from the satellite, using a wide angle lamp setup like how they have those clustered hex horns for RF spot beams from GEO, but there will be a lot of stakeholders who will definitely not like laser beacons wide angle beaconing 24/7 from space.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/06/2021 03:01 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1379448725282689027

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/06/2021 03:18 pm
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1379447033900244993

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1379447380551012359

Quote
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.

twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1379447921188470788

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1379448230212157449

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1379451682262806528

Quote
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."

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1379452039386820613

Quote
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."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/06/2021 04:14 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1379457181913911301

Quote
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."

twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1379457413993136133

Quote
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."

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1379458157282529283

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/06/2021 04:31 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1379448725282689027

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/06/2021 04:35 pm
Article:
[CNBC] SpaceX does not plan to add ‘tiered pricing’ for Starlink satellite internet service, president says (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/06/spacexs-shotwell-no-plan-for-tiered-starlink-internet-pricing.html)

Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1379445203178774534

Quote
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."

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/06/2021 04:52 pm
Gwynne is smashing it, taking no prisoners.  8)

I can only imagine the growing sense of foreboding among her fellow panel members - those that have moved beyond the denial phase, that is.

The steamroller ain’t slowing down.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 04/07/2021 01:52 am
They do provide a lot of technical details to beta users, this is an email sent to beta users yesterday:

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/07/2021 06:30 pm
  Maybe somebody who's tracking what satellites are going where can answer.
 I keep hearing they populate three planes at once with a launch, but 60 sats to populate three 22 sat planes doesn't add up too well. To finish out planes and fill gaps left by rideshare launches and birds that didn't make it, will they be using partial launches, maybe with rtls or just spend a long time drifting sats into place? Or am I just looking at something completely wrong?
 Will there be on orbit spares?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: daavery on 04/07/2021 06:56 pm
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.

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1379542291325595648/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1379542291325595648/photo/1)




Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/07/2021 07:40 pm
https://www.geekwire.com/2021/spacex-leases-new-125000-square-foot-complex-seattle-area-starlink-satellite-operation-grows/

Quote
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.

Caption:

Quote
An artist’s conception shows one of the buildings currently under construction at Redmond Ridge Business Park. (Illustration via Kidder Mathews)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 04/08/2021 06:17 am
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.

It's also not hard to change the number of birds per plane.  The existing birds have to phase in their orbit a bit to make room for the newbies, but that only costs a few m/s.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/08/2021 05:54 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 04/08/2021 06:49 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/09/2021 01:20 am
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?


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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/09/2021 01:30 am



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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/09/2021 01:46 am
<snip>
With ASOG maybe finally arriving, might they debut it on the west coast?

Seems likely.

But was hoping SpaceX will debut ASOG with the launch of USSF-44 on Falcon Heavy for mid-Atlantic center core retrieval. To finally inspected a flown center core.  :)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: darkenfast on 04/09/2021 02:04 am
Keep in mind the cost of the non-reusable second stage and its Merlin-Vacuum engine (which is reportedly more expensive than the regular version). The trade seems to be:

1. Launch perhaps two F9s with a smaller number of satellites each, save time and money on recovery by RTLS instead of Droneship landing, but expend two 2nd stages and their MVacs.

vs

2. Launch one F9 with 60 satellites, spend time and money on Droneship, but expend only one second stage and its MVac.

To go further down the rabbit hole: what if three F9s can launch 40 apiece and RTLS (expending three second stages in a "three for two" deal).
AND, in all the above, there's still those pesky planes to consider!

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AndrewRG10 on 04/09/2021 06:11 am
Just got an email from Starlink saying they are now serving for Victoria and southern NSW. If you're in those areas and need good internet, now is your time to get it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/09/2021 07:36 pm
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/4/9/22374262/oneweb-spacex-satellites-dodged-potential-collision-orbit-space-force

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 04/10/2021 03:04 am
https://twitter.com/ProfHughLewis/status/1380647894705930242

Quote
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/10/2021 03:19 am
Yeah, I actually think we should go even lower than Starlink. (Although kudos to SpaceX for picking a low altitude.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kessdawg on 04/10/2021 02:07 pm
Yeah, I actually think we should go even lower than Starlink. (Although kudos to SpaceX for picking a low altitude.)

I really think OneWeb (and other constellations) should be prohibited from higher orbits where decay time is greater than some x number of years (where x can be counted on two hands)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/10/2021 06:58 pm
...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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 04/10/2021 07:18 pm
...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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/10/2021 08:40 pm
...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.
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.

This gives economic incentive for deorbit capabilities. The insurance companies contract with companies that do things in space. I bet once SS is operational they could whip up a tug in nothing flat.

Off topic, but StarLink inspired.


Edit: there would be the Allstate tug, the Progressive tug...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/11/2021 04:58 am
...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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/11/2021 05:58 pm
...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.
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.


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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/11/2021 08:11 pm
...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.
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.


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.
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.

Quote
Let's leave it here or start a new thread.
Nice try. You first! ;)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SpeakertoAnimals on 04/11/2021 08:35 pm
...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.
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.


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.
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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rebel44 on 04/11/2021 08:40 pm
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.

This conjunction also indicates that OneWeb folks made some error(s) in planning to raise the orbit of that satellite - because I would expect that checking the planned maneuvers against known orbits of other satellites would (or should) be standard - just like it is required (at least in some countries) to check that your rocket launch won't hit something that is already in orbit in order to get a launch license.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: LouScheffer on 04/12/2021 09:23 am
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.

So what they would need to add would be an inertial navigation system capable of updating at least 250 times per second, and enough computational horsepower to compute the phases for all 1500 elements (basically a dot product) at the same rate.  Neither is very difficult or costly with today's electronics and sensors.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 04/12/2021 04:26 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1381601963289284612

Quote
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

Quote
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."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/12/2021 06:11 pm
Regarding Starlink and the revenue it will generate for SpaceX.

It is now doing Beta in 7 countries and have more than 10,000 users (last number I saw)

Once this is operational and they start full operation, the revenue stream is going to be gigantic. 

The possible ramp up speed could really surprise people. 

Starlink could be producing 100's of millions in revenue in a few years time. 

I think the reason that they might take Starlink public one day is that it will be too big and important as a privately held company and attract regulatory attention globally.

Can't wait to see how this goes over the next couple of years.  Look out Mars here we come!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AndrewRG10 on 04/13/2021 07:50 pm
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-04-14/elon-musk-starlink-operating-australia-what-is-it/100062862
How about a positive ABC article about excited Australians getting Starlink.
Tl;dr though, basically same thing. So much faster than regional internet, same or less price, much better ping but not as good as city pig. But here is something different, internet speeds are as fast as a good NBN plan. Heck someone got 344 mbps, which is something I have never heard of in Australia
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/13/2021 10:28 pm
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.

Lets ignore liability issues and focus on survivability. "... with a working sat..." is key. When I'm driving I work on the assumption that nobody else has a sense of self preservation - especially when on two wheels. The time is fast approaching when automatic avoidance is the only way it will work. An underlying assumption has to be that the other sat is dead.


There needs to be a set of rules, similar to right of way at a four way stop, that dictate who does what. What the rules are is less important than they be clear cut and work even if only one sat maneuvers.


One exception is a fresh launch. It has to be the launch providers responsibility to not plow into an established sat. There just isn't enough time for the sat to react.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/13/2021 10:33 pm
...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.
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.


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.
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.

Quote
Let'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.  ;D
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 04/13/2021 10:48 pm
...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.
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.


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.
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.

Quote
Let'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.  ;D

Yeah, probably appropriate for a new thread, maybe in space policy section.  There are lots of potential ways to fund-enforce this.  E.g., Banks are required to have reserves; pensions also; etc.  All another form of "insurance" to manage future obligations.  International alignment another issue (as it has always been).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 04/14/2021 04:37 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/14/2021 05:25 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 04/15/2021 01:16 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 04/15/2021 02:21 am
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.

Hate that it didn't work out, but it sounds like they are planning a mobile version for the future.

And glad you are getting your money back!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Redclaws on 04/15/2021 02:47 am
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.

Roy, just curious, if you know - is your sense that the motion disconnect is a deliberate shut off by the device, or it’s not capable of functioning if it moves even a fairly moderate distance?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 04/15/2021 02:49 am

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tomness on 04/15/2021 03:17 am

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 04/15/2021 04:21 am

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.

1 million paying starlink customers  =  1 billion dollars a year in revenue.

Maybe twice that, or 2 million customers looks like roughly enough money to fund 10,000 employees, and enough to keep building and launching starships and starlink sat en mass

Keep in mind that these 2 million customers can be spread across the globe.   Also, some customers might pay more  ( like ships and planes and the military for example)

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.

I am fortunately enough to be a beta customer.   Service is not perfect, but it's fully usable for an entire regular household.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Vultur on 04/15/2021 05:34 am
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.

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 wonder, though, if Starlink bringing fast internet to rural areas + telecommuting becoming "normal" in the past year would slow down the trend toward rural -> suburban/urban movement in the US?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: geekesq on 04/15/2021 05:51 am
...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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/15/2021 06:32 am


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.

I did some calculations (taking a revenue vs cost per satellite approach), and punched the numbers into a quickly built Excel 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.

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.

EDIT

For context, when you look at best case scenarios involving Starship and more powerful satellites in a 40k strong constellation, the revenue and profit numbers become awe inspiring. Tens of billions per year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/15/2021 03:14 pm
...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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TGebs15 on 04/15/2021 05:28 pm
...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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/15/2021 05:35 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/15/spacexs-starlink-early-users-review-service-internet-speed-price.html

Quote
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

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1382749498825441289

Quote
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…

https://youtu.be/GambrByc01A
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/15/2021 05:39 pm
...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.
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.
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.
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.
 I'm sure that whoever makes a fortune running a subsidized fiber to a village of six people in the NWT won't be happy, but Starlink could well be the answer to global (on land at least) cell coverage.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 04/15/2021 05:44 pm
Nice article with user interviews by Michael Sheetz: What early users of SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet think about the service, speed and more (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/spacexs-starlink-early-users-review-service-internet-speed-price.html)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/15/2021 11:51 pm
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1382748455341322242

Quote
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:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1382839546484641794

Quote
This is accurate. Service uptime, bandwidth & latency are improving rapidly. Probably out of beta this summer.

twitter.com/erdayastronaut/status/1382840587762688002

Quote
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 🤔

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1382842277719003136

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: archae86 on 04/16/2021 01:31 am
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.

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.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see, other than the 20% "overhead" any allocation of cost to actually interacting with customers.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 04/16/2021 02:14 am
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.

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.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see, other than the 20% "overhead" any allocation of cost to actually interacting with customers.

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.

Good points, however...

How many times do iPhone users ,on average,  talk to a live apple employee ?

It is possible to build highly reliable HW and SW .. apple and cell providers do it. 

Let’s agree that Comcast sucks at a lot of things for a lot of reasons.  Such a low bar, it will be easy to do better
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 04/16/2021 04:37 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 04/16/2021 01:06 pm
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.

A little story of customer interaction with another musk company.

I have tesla solar panels.
I noticed the app wasn't updating with solar and consumption.
I used the app to say it wasn't updating. Solar panels were generating power according to the inverter so it was an app/backend problem.
A few days(or less) later I received a feedback that they were testing software upgrade and expect there to be times when it didn't so data.

So had they sent out the notification earlier they would have never gotten a service report.
Overall the customer interaction with tesla solar is pretty good.
So they do have a lot of customer interaction experience at tesla.
Not the same company but...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/18/2021 03:10 am
[Space News] SpaceX adds to latest funding round (https://spacenews.com/spacex-adds-to-latest-funding-round/)
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: eeergo on 04/20/2021 10:43 am
Quote
This is accurate. Service uptime, bandwidth & latency are improving rapidly. Probably out of beta this summer.

April 6th: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/06/spacexs-shotwell-no-plan-for-tiered-starlink-internet-pricing.html

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/20/2021 06:03 pm
What gives?

Those statements aren't really mutually exclusive.  Gwynne declined to give a date on when that phase will end, and Elon gave a timeframe when he hoped it would end.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: snotis on 04/20/2021 11:59 pm
From recent FCC document about recent SpaceX and OneWeb collision mitigation:

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=6212177 (https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=6212177)

Quote
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.

 .

Quote
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.

 .

Quote
• 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.

 .

Quote
• 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.

 .

Quote
• 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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 04/21/2021 03:09 pm
...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.
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.
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.
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.


Trucking is not a market to be ruled out but it's not the low hanging fruit.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 04/21/2021 07:33 pm
15% of the global surface area being revenue earning at any given time,
, 20gb capacity per satellite,
Sorry . how many user you mean  under //15% of the global surface area??

and "20gbit  capacity per satellite"  I know this words from first file from 2016 for FCC,
calculation for it is follow: 2000 MHz in 2 polarisation  and max 64QAm  mean 6 bit/Hz  = 4000 MHz x 6 bit = 24 Gbit
but what I see now is
2000 MHz  in only one polarisation (UT can work only in right hand) and SNR  = 9 dB (or 8PSK)  or 3 bit/Hz
2000 MHz x 3 bit = 6 Gbit...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kiwi53 on 04/21/2021 10:23 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 04/26/2021 12:43 pm
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=5

Quote
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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 04/26/2021 12:47 pm
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=5

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/26/2021 01:38 pm
That map is linked in the Starlink index thread at the beginning of the gateway list if you ever lose track of it.  It was made by u/softwaresaur
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/26/2021 03:46 pm
Anything on the international gateways?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/27/2021 02:44 pm
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1387054591246745602

Quote
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.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-27/elon-musk-s-spacex-wins-approval-for-lower-orbits-amazon-fought

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1387057422548746244

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/27/2021 05:52 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1387099970705166337

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 04/27/2021 06:09 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1387099970705166337

Quote
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

Right... Bezos' PR machine trying to spin yet another loss into a win.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 04/27/2021 06:40 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1387099970705166337

Quote
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

Right... Bezos' PR machine trying to spin yet another loss into a win.

Someone needs to play nice with the FCC.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/27/2021 07:45 pm
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1387126531596636162

Quote
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.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22405779/fcc-approves-spacex-starlink-lower-orbits-against-amazon-rival-objections
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/27/2021 10:47 pm
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1387062136812277761

Quote
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:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1387176157737541641

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/28/2021 08:40 pm
Land being leveled and foundation area being prepared for what Austin locals believe is the Starlink user terminal factory.  It is across the toll road from the Tesla Gigafactory.  Starting at about 3:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPPo0hcOLD0
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/30/2021 01:29 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1388122926168293376

Quote
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."

http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via/may-2021/a-conversation-with-gwynne-shotwell-2020-satellite-executive-of-the-year/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 04/30/2021 01:33 pm
Right... Bezos' PR machine trying to spin yet another loss into a win.
Let them have it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 04/30/2021 06:23 pm
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.
A total of 28 (planned) non-starlink launches (including 4 crewed launches!) for 2021 does not count as "barely" in my book.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 04/30/2021 06:38 pm
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

Also...COVID?

I would speculate that SpaceX was not as affected as a lot of things were internal. But the aerospace supply chain has had substantial impacts the last year - lots of projects paused, slowed, cancelled, etc.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 04/30/2021 06:57 pm
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.
A total of 28 (planned) non-starlink launches (including 4 crewed launches!) for 2021 does not count as "barely" in my book.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 04/30/2021 07:06 pm
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.
A total of 28 (planned) non-starlink launches (including 4 crewed launches!) for 2021 does not count as "barely" in my book.

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.
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.
However, 20 commercial launches also don't count as "barely any commercial launches".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/01/2021 03:44 am
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.
A total of 28 (planned) non-starlink launches (including 4 crewed launches!) for 2021 does not count as "barely" in my book.

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.
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.
However, 20 commercial launches also don't count as "barely any commercial launches".
2021 is not unique. 2020 had 14 Starlink to 12 all others.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 05/01/2021 05:02 am
Current geostationary launches would have been ordered before 2019. This period saw a slump in orders, so it may take a few years for rebound orders made in 2019+ to make it to the pad.

https://spacenews.com/geostationary-satellite-orders-bouncing-back/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/01/2021 03:50 pm
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.
A total of 28 (planned) non-starlink launches (including 4 crewed launches!) for 2021 does not count as "barely" in my book.

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. AIUI, the stable of boosters is getting thin which could be a problem. Do we have any info on new builds?


Technically OT, but highly related.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/01/2021 03:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 05/01/2021 07:04 pm
Did you see that SpaceX has initial DARPA funding to design a smaller, battery-powered antenna?

https://twitter.com/cashel/status/1387972026082594821
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 05/01/2021 07:23 pm
 Small antennas might come at a higher monthly cost. Photon budget is a fine dance sat operators have to perform, and if a smaller dish needs a 6db stronger downhill signal, that's probably not going to be for free. Or they'll be restricted to lower bandwidth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/01/2021 09:07 pm
Related to that, is this an SBIR award to SpaceX or to somebody else?  I ask because SpaceX isn't such a "small business."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/01/2021 09:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/02/2021 02:51 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/02/2021 02:55 pm
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?

Not sure about the payload penalty from the East coast.  I thought they wanted to launch the polar planes from the West coast so that they had more capacity to fly from 3 pads and not just 2.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/02/2021 03:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: r1279 on 05/02/2021 04:14 pm
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.

Most of the Starlink remaining launches this year?  Wouldn't the 70° inclination launch out of Vandenberg?  That's 12 launches right there.  There's ~3 left to fill out the first 53° shell, and 9 left for the 97.6° polar launches.  Seems at best split no!? (Depending on which polar launches are from the Cape or Vandenberg) 

I'm speculating the 1584 for the 53.2° shell might not start until late in the year or next year, as they are for increasing capacity not increasing coverage, depending on when they are ready to start deploying laser interlinks into the 53° shells. [although there is this dated reference (last paragraph) (https://www.spacex.com/updates/starlink-update-04-28-2020/index.html) talking about next gen satellites "designed to take advantage of Starship's unique launch capabilities"]
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/03/2021 10:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DreamyPickle on 05/06/2021 06:44 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/06/2021 01:00 pm
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.



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/07/2021 01:10 am
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.
Distance between birds aside, it should be easier. Relative motion should be close to zip.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Reynold on 05/07/2021 03:01 pm
Related to that, is this an SBIR award to SpaceX or to somebody else?  I ask because SpaceX isn't such a "small business."

I worked a lot on SBIR contracts early in my career, this is just a solicitation for any small businesses that want to develop something compatible with the Starlink system.  They are typically very open ended, in that any small (under 500 people, there is also a revenue limit) company can apply for them, though part of what you describe in your proposal is your qualifications to do the work, so Joe's Ice Cream Emporium is not likely to get funded. 

There are tricks you can play with these, such as a small company is the lead proposer, and they have a large company as a subcontractor to help.  They are not huge money (a Phase 1 SBIR is $50k), so the incentive is to win a Phase 2, which can be $750k or so, and move on to Phase 3.  Still insignificant money to a SpaceX, but but remember these are intended for small innovative companies, not large innovative ones. . . 

Something interesting about this one is that it has a rather short time between when the solicitation opens, 5/19/2021, and when it closes, 6/17/2021.  I had usually seen at least 6 months for these windows, though maybe that has changed over time.  While government agencies are not allowed to pre-pick who will win these SBIR contracts, they go to panels of evaluators, they do sometimes have one or two companies in mind for them, and with only a little over a month to get this proposal in somebody who was ready to go with it would certainly have an edge. 

The other interesting SBIR solicitation I saw when poking around there, though it probably needs to go in another topic, is "AF212-0012  TITLE: Rocket Landing on Irregular Surfaces"  I'll see if I can figure out where to discuss that, I'm new to this forum. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/07/2021 03:07 pm
Thank you and welcome!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SMS on 05/08/2021 09:25 pm
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, Siva Bharadvaj, Andy Tran, Kate Tice, John Insprucker and and 1 women (who knows her name?) during which Starlinks launch transmission from L1 to L23 to provide live comments?


I know the last two were:
L25 (Apr 29/21) - Siva Bharadvaj;
L26 (May 04/21) - Jessie Anderson;

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? Thanks.

Comments are welcome.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 05/08/2021 11:49 pm
Who can provide the full list launches from the first one on February 18, 2018? Thanks.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.0
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SMS on 05/09/2021 02:40 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/09/2021 04:50 am
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/)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SMS on 05/10/2021 03:41 am
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.

Now I have a full list of SpaceX media group for Starlink all brodcasts:

1) Jessie Anderson - the leader most participations in 29 all starlinks's brodcasts (how many can someone cound it? for each from these list bellow?);
2) Siva Bhaeadvaj - ?
3) Tom Praderio - 2
4) Lauren Lyons - ?
5) Kate Tice - ?
6) Andy Tran - ?
7) Michael Andrews - ?
8) Youmei Zhou only one!

I have 7 transmisions with two comment leaders !

To compare the results only ;)

EDIT: I waiting for theirs permissions to publish this table with these statistics !
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SMS on 05/11/2021 05:42 am
Here is this statistics for all Starlinks launches: including test and Transporter1:

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 05/11/2021 04:17 pm
Here is this statistics for all Starlinks launches: including test and Transporter1:

Lyons' name is incorrect:

http://www.lauren-lyons.com/#main
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SMS on 05/11/2021 05:55 pm
Here is this statistics for all Starlinks launches: including test and Transporter1:

Lyons' name is incorrect:

http://www.lauren-lyons.com/#main


Thanks, I will correct it and put the corrected file.
BTW, Does someone know who from all team will be carry comments during the jubilee 30th Starlink's launch on Wednesday?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/13/2021 12:54 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/13/google-cloud-wins-spacex-deal-for-starlink-internet-connectivity.html

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/13/2021 06:00 pm
Not super surprising, since Google is a significant investor in SpaceX/Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mn on 05/13/2021 06:13 pm
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/)

Quote
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'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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/13/2021 06:26 pm
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/)

Quote
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'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?

I don't know all of the details, but just a portion of the 12 GHz band is at issue.  That said, it is a portion that is dedicated to user terminal download and is the portion that is least susceptible to weather attenuation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/13/2021 06:29 pm
That article is a bit misleading.  There isn't really any imminent ruling affecting Starlink.  Starlink is far from the only system that would be affected by changing rules.  These proceedings can go on for years (and often do).  It is possible for the rules to be changed, which would affect Starlink and a bunch of other satellite systems negatively, but there doesn't really seem to be anything happening soon.

FCC Seeks Comment on Maximizing Efficient Use of 12 GHz Band (https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-comment-maximizing-efficient-use-12-ghz-band)
Docket 20-443  Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=20-443&sort=date_disseminated,DESC)
Docket RM-11768  Petition for Rulemaking to Permit MVDDS Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band for Two-Way Mobile Broadband Service (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=RM-11768&sort=date_disseminated,DESC)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/13/2021 06:34 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/13/google-cloud-wins-spacex-deal-for-starlink-internet-connectivity.html

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 05/13/2021 06:44 pm
I got an invite today to order my starlink kit in The Netherlands. Price is as expected; €499 for the dish, €60 shipping and handling, €99 a month. This seems like the start of the roll-out over here.
I'll skip for now, I've already got decent internet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tomness on 05/13/2021 07:16 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/13/google-cloud-wins-spacex-deal-for-starlink-internet-connectivity.html

Quote
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.

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.

As they should. Alphabet gave them a billion. You should be able to stream YouTube and play Google Stadia from Data Centers directly not having to leave ecosystem
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Scintillant on 05/16/2021 01:42 am
Some interesting tidbits from the Reddit AMA (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/ncj4vz/we_are_the_spacex_software_team_ask_us_anything/):

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jketch on 05/16/2021 05:32 am
his is an arbitrary milestone, but with today's launch, the total launched mass of Starlink v1.0 sats is 1615X260kg = 419,900kg. That's slightly more than Wikipedia's mass listing for ISS of 419,725kg.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SMS on 05/16/2021 06:47 am

BTW, Does someone know who from all team will be carry comments during the jubilee 30th Starlink's launch on Wednesday?

It was Kate Tice's day, but during brodcast a new character in SpaceX media team has appeared: Ian Mccllough seen on the first time during Starlink's launch brodcast.

Updated table with statistics during the 30 Starlinks launches: (May 16, 2021):
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/17/2021 03:47 am
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/17/2021 04:00 am
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)

Well, it’s theverge.

Loved how the guy complains about intermittent service gaps when SpaceX expressly states that there will be service gaps during the “Better Than Nothing” BETA,  until they have enough satellites to provide continuous coverage.

To use that as a negative mark in an assessment of the overall Starlink offering is absurd.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/17/2021 04:03 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 05/17/2021 04:48 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/17/2021 05:09 am
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/17/2021 07:25 pm
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.


No wide eyed geek techno love. No curmudgenish it won't work. Maybe left too much unsaid on sat visuals, but I didn't read the link to that issue.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/17/2021 07:39 pm
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).
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/17/2021 09:15 pm
The biggest issue with the review - IMO - was the sheer lack of effort on his part.
 - Did the minimal (if even that) effort to place/mount it in a way to resolve obstructions, despite the instructions and app being very clear that a clear view of the sky was needed
 - Tried to set it up for his co-worker despite knowing that her address/location was not going to work according to the app

The negative points raised ARE valid and need to be stressed, but they need to balanced properly.

And it also helps that you review the product as it was intended (beta product for people not served by broadband), not as you imagine it in your mind (a true competitor to fiber so I can dump my annoying ISP that still offers gigabit speeds).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/19/2021 04:58 am
General overview article from Vox: The FCC’s big bet on Elon Musk - The billionaire’s space internet project could connect millions of remote American homes. If it actually works. (https://www.vox.com/recode/22431261/starlink-spacex-elon-musk-fcc-satellite-internet)

At least it actually quoted real users who knows how to use the antenna properly, but it also quoted a metric tons of negative opinions from naysayers, I'll just leave Viasat's quote here for posterity:

Quote
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.”

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SMS on 05/19/2021 06:51 am
Updated table with statistics during the 30 Starlinks launches
before Starlink Starlink v1.0 L28: 26 May 2021(1859 UTC) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53745.0) launch:

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/21/2021 05:53 am
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 05/21/2021 11:42 am
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Don't solid rocket boosters deposit mega tonnes of Al in the upper atmosphere?

EDIT:
so for a shuttle launch I get:
500t*16%*2 =160t
500t propellant for one SRB
16% Aluminum powder
2 per shuttle.
160t*133 =21kt
133 shuttle flights

Shuttle:
This is left in a trajectory from 0km to 60km.
So half above 30km.
10 kilo tonnes of aluminum above 30km.

Starlink:
Each launch of starlink puts 16t of starlinks that will reenter and leave their mostly aluminum? in the 30km to 60km reentry burn up range.
16t*26 missions=416t

So 10,000t/416t =20 times from boosters?

Didn't even add atlas, arianne, etc that use solids.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: eeergo on 05/21/2021 01:07 pm
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/24/2021 11:10 pm
Via Satellite is reporting that Viasat has threatened to sue to stay the FCC's grant of Starlink's modification because the FCC didn't require an environment assessment.

https://www.satellitetoday.com/broadband/2021/05/24/viasat-may-seek-stay-from-dc-circuit-for-fcc-approved-starlink-modification/

Edit:  And here's Viasat's request.

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=7999303
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/25/2021 01:02 am
I like how the Twitter astro community's hyperbolic concern-trolling is now being weaponized by companies just for protecting their profits.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/25/2021 01:33 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/25/2021 02:18 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/25/2021 02:51 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/25/2021 03:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/25/2021 04:28 am
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.

Not the whole community obviously, but a few loudmouths on twitter. Also the whole NEPA thing is invented by a law student to "help" astronomers: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fccs-approval-of-spacexs-starlink-mega-constellation-may-have-been-unlawful/

Quote
“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.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/25/2021 02:54 pm
I'm not sure that we should dismiss the applicability of NEPA out of hand (and the challenge to the FCC's categorical exclusion with regard to megaconstellations), even if it was raised by a creative second year law student.  I respect NEPA's and our court system's ability to cause delay and obstruction.

Viasat seems to be playing with fire with this.  Once the genie is out of the bottle, who knows what could happen.  For instance, it ultimately could hurt themselves more than it hurts Starlink.

With regard to the astronomy community, the irony is that this suit could hurt the good citizen Starlink and allow other countries with less careful attitudes to launch megaconstellations uninhibited.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 05/25/2021 03:21 pm
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: eeergo on 05/25/2021 07:54 pm
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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.
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.

Was the ad hominem necessary, especially considering your many typos?

Fine, still not megatons by a orders of magnitude, especially since they don't accumulate.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/26/2021 08:19 am
Eric pulling no punches:

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-viasat-cant-compete-fcc/

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1397345464475807745

Quote
Exactly 🤣🤣
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 05/26/2021 12:38 pm
I think this is relevant here, especially with the current Viasat brouhaha.

China establishes company to build satellite broadband megaconstellation (https://spacenews.com/china-establishes-company-to-build-satellite-broadband-megaconstellation/)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kiwi53 on 05/29/2021 01:46 am
It seems that there will be Starlink launches into 70° orbits from Vandenberg relatively soon.

Once there is a substantial number of satellites active in the 70° shells, what difference will that make for Starlink users?
Coverage in high latitudes further north and south - up to 70° latitude?
Better coverage in mid latitudes?
Better coverage in low latitudes?

[Beg pardon if this is an inappropriate newbie question, there are so many threads it's hard to find stuff]
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/29/2021 01:54 am
The 70 degree shell should give coverage for Alaska and northern Europe.  It's not clear to me yet if the 70 degree shell would be counted as "polar" in Elon's reference as to which Starlinks will get laser ISL installed this year.

edit:  Satellites to any of the inclinations will help improve coverage at mid and low latitudes, but those will get covered pretty well between the 53 and 53.2 degree shells.  The higher latitude shells are mostly to extend coverage over the rest of the Earth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Yggdrasill on 05/29/2021 11:51 am
Yes, the 70 degree shell would extend coverage to the people in the latitude bands 58-75 degrees north and south, roughly. That includes Alaska, northern Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, northern Russia, and parts of Antarctica. Also includes a lot of ocean (ships), and a lot of intercontinental flights between North America and Europe, and between Europe and Asia.

I really look forward to being able to tell people that Starlink is an actual option for people here in Norway. I occasionally end up discussing it with people who could need it at their cabin, where they live or on their boats, and I'm always forced to say it won't be available this year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 05/29/2021 01:21 pm
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 22 25 (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!

  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 wrong! its 25 degrees .... but I calculated the the 13.5 degrees of latitude and 890 miles from the incorrect 22 degrees, so they are a bit out! Thanks gongora for pointing it out.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/29/2021 04:02 pm
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 22 25degrees, 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.

People better with orbits than me, please correct me, but wouldn't having the 70 degree planes provide more coverage for the lower latitudes than the 90 degrees?  (More time over customers)

My point being that the 70 degree birds provide additional capacity at lower latitudes as well.

If there are 2 boosters going west maybe we will see a flight rate slight better than 1 per month.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/29/2021 04:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 05/29/2021 06:39 pm
Do you think SpaceX will split the launches Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral?   

97.6 degrees, 348 satellites, 6 launches, 560 km, Vandenberg
97.6 degrees, 172 satellites, 4 launches, 560 km, Vandenberg

70 degrees,720 satellites, 12 launches, 570 km, Cape Canaveral
53.2 degrees, 1584 satellites, 28 launches, 540 km, Cape Canaveral
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/29/2021 08:24 pm
They're starting with 70 degrees from Vandenberg
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 05/29/2021 08:33 pm
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)

Quote
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 already said it but I expecting more and more European lawfare against Starlink and SpaceX in general.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/29/2021 09:09 pm
As SpaceX’s considerable advantages become more apparent Europe and others will complain.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 05/29/2021 10:30 pm
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 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!
Editing my post again! Thankyou.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Yggdrasill on 05/29/2021 11:06 pm
I think the minimum elevation allowed is 22 25 (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 get a coverage area with a 8.7 degree radius or 968 km (~605 miles) radius. That's at 570 km altitude.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 05/30/2021 12:15 am
I think the minimum elevation allowed is 22 25 (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 get a coverage area with a 8.7 degree radius or 968 km (~605 miles) radius. That's at 570 km altitude.

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.
Yes I had errors! Now correct I think.
I'm now certain its 10.9 degrees... x 66 M/deg = 720Miles ... after recalculating using 25 degrees. Earth rad = 3963 miles.


OK after correcting for orbit is 570 Km (not miles) thankyou Yggdrasill now I agree with what everyone else was saying all along! 8.74 degrees  x 69 M/deg = 608 miles. Right at last! (and I've been teaching maths recently!) (Yes, should have worked in metric/SI units really!)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/30/2021 01:29 am
As SpaceX’s considerable advantages become more apparent Europe and others will complain.

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.
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.

That's what I don't get about the "jobs" arguments: are you saying there's a limited amount of work to be done? *in space*? Do only unproductive things make jobs? If Europe gets, say, $5 billion dollars to spend on space stuff, they should try to maximize the effectiveness of that $5 billion. Because as long as it's spent in Europe, it'll produce the same number of jobs if they do productive things as if they do unproductive things. In fact, if the things you're doing are productive, they'll probably bring in outside investment and revenue, like SpaceX has done, therefore providing even MORE jobs.

So if it's jobs you want, try to make the $5 billion as effectively and efficiently spent as possible. Don't build a dead-end expendable rocket, build a reusable one. Heck, a fully reusable one!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Vultur on 05/30/2021 01:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ThomasGadd on 05/30/2021 02:02 am
They're starting with 70 degrees from Vandenberg

Do we know they are starting with 70 degrees?  I missed that in the docs...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 05/30/2021 02:08 am
They're starting with 70 degrees from Vandenberg

Do we know they are starting with 70 degrees?  I missed that in the docs...

The launch communication permits for the upcoming Vandenberg flights show the ASDS in position for 70 degrees.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/30/2021 02:14 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 05/30/2021 02:38 am
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.
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.
Qaanaaq, in W Greenland/@77.467N (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Qaanaaq,+Greenland[/url)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: daavery on 05/30/2021 05:26 am
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 latitudes
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Yggdrasill on 05/30/2021 08:07 am
Yes I had errors! Now correct I think.
I'm now certain its 10.9 degrees... x 66 M/deg = 720Miles ... after recalculating using 25 degrees. Earth rad = 3963 miles.
The satellite altitude is 570 km, not 570 miles. (Things are always easier if you just go metric...)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Yggdrasill on 05/30/2021 08:22 am
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 latitudes
I 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.

At 82 degrees latitude GEO drops below the horizon.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 05/30/2021 12:04 pm
Yes I had errors! Now correct I think.
I'm now certain its 10.9 degrees... x 66 M/deg = 720Miles ... after recalculating using 25 degrees. Earth rad = 3963 miles.
The satellite altitude is 570 km, not 570 miles. (Things are always easier if you just go metric...)
DAMN  I am an idiot!
Re-do-3 coming up! Thankyou it has to be right!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 05/30/2021 01:29 pm
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 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!
Editing my post again! Thankyou.
22 degrees is a common dish offset. That might have been why it popped up in your head.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/30/2021 10:53 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jketch on 05/30/2021 11:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/30/2021 11:57 pm
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.

Imagine broadband speeds at 40,000 feet, going 800 KHP over the North Pole.  It’s almost here. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/31/2021 12:24 am
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 05/31/2021 04:03 am
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

Great Circle routes are an amazing thing
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kiwi53 on 05/31/2021 09:56 pm
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 land
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: octavo on 06/02/2021 11:02 am
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

From Wiki
Quote
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.


The only planes that can fly these routes are 4-engined aircraft because of the regulations you cited.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/02/2021 01:42 pm
 Not true. Dual engine aircraft can now do the longest routes.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/02/2021 05:08 pm
Meaning the application here for Starlink is that few if any options currently exist for high bandwidth Internet data connection along such routes. Once the 70 degree inclination sats start deployment (hopefully with ISL's). Then maybe Starlink becomes a contender for such an in flight data provider service.

Something to watch for.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/02/2021 08:51 pm
OneWeb should be available at high latitudes before Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/02/2021 09:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/05/2021 10:11 am
Change to SpaceX's Starlink internet constellation faces legal challenge (https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-megaconstellation-fcc-viasat-dish)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/05/2021 05:02 pm
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.

Meaning nothing will launch for a few years.

The basic fault in the Viasat legal brief is that Starlink is supposedly being separated from the herd because of it's low orbit. But all sats have a risk of reentering because of a failed launch. Even those headed for BEO. So all would have to comply or none.

Plus it does not take into account that meteorites dump into the Earths upper atmosphere reaches 1000's of tons of material. Much of that is what would be considered toxic in concentration.

I do not think this appeal will win a ruling to stop just the Starlink launches. It will be dismissed as baseless in that the quantities involved are not even close to an environmental concern.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rubicondsrv on 06/05/2021 05:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/05/2021 05:50 pm
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.

NOTE: The FCC autority to regulate is actually by law limited to the RF and optical radiations that impinge on the denizens of the US lawful activity, as in communications. Their authority does not include the application of US EPA laws in outer space. Especially considering there is as yet any laws about bit's and pieces of space debris that somehow liberate from US satellites. By gentleman's agreement and for the betterment of all that use space. Government and all others in the US try to minimise such occurrences. But they still happen. Hence the huge debate over space debris and what to do about it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Redclaws on 06/05/2021 06:09 pm
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.

I would say much more that it’s because their requests are way, way outside normal readings of the law and often clearly contrary to the intent and purpose of the laws.  The intent and purpose of the laws reflect national interest, sure, but Viasat is losing their cases/proceedings because their contentions are both largely nonsense and transparently not raised in good faith - obviously only raised to attempt to hobble the success of a competitor rather than due to real concerns.  That’s why they’re losing - not because regulators and (especially) courts are thinking of the national interest.

Frankly, to state it simply: they’re losing because their cases are hot garbage.  That they have shocking, stupid, and hugely negative implications is a function of them being, well, hot garbage, advanced purely in an attempt to use the force of law to make up for their competitive failures.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/07/2021 11:25 am
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/)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Redclaws on 06/07/2021 12:36 pm
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/)

Quote
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.

Well, the new receiving antenna is 12.2 inches on a side rather than 14.7, which gives a roughly 1/3 reduction in total area (148 vs 216).

That should save some $$.  The article also mentions a smaller antenna may be enabled by the height reduction for the satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/07/2021 03:40 pm
That new user terminal form factor has been mentioned in earlier FCC permit filings where they were testing for mobility applications.  It seems they're starting to test it more extensively now.  I meant to post that the other day in the FCC filings thread but never got around to looking up the differences with the old terminal (other than size/shape).

I don't know if this would replace Dishy or be used for different applications.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/07/2021 06:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/14/2021 02:37 am
News summary for those of us who don't read every FCC filing:

Starlink On Verge Of Losing Fight For Crucial Infrastructure To Amazon (https://wccftech.com/starlink-on-verge-of-losing-fight-for-crucial-infrastructure-to-amazon/)

Quote
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.


Microsoft’s Guns Blazing Starlink Support Can Deal Michael Dell’s RS Access Serious Blow (https://wccftech.com/microsofts-guns-blazing-starlink-support-can-deal-michael-dells-rs-access-serious-blow/)

Quote
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.


Brand New Starlink Dish To Reduce Power Yet Improve Range & Efficiency (https://wccftech.com/brand-new-starlink-dish-to-reduce-power-yet-improve-range-efficiency/)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mariusuiram on 06/14/2021 04:03 pm
The article from The Verge does not seem to really align with the heading. Unless they have more off the record information, they basically lay out the typical back and forth of these filings with both sides arguing the opposition is undermining commerce.

I have no specialist knowledge, but I felt like SpaceX's latest argument is compelling that the benefit/cost trade off was argued and rejected in the last round of debate on the constellations and the requirements for timely delivery / development.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/15/2021 01:25 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/15/2021 05:53 pm
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 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.

So it is likely that the smaller DISHY has the same number of elements (almost) as the larger one. But sometimes a smaller size can mean other significant cost savings in manufacture that is not visible. Such things as COTS tooling and manufacturing equipment for electronics being much cheaper for a smaller DISHY even just a 15% smaller one than the equipment needed to manufacture a bigger one. So instead of just a 15% drop in cost of manufacture you could have a 30% drop or even more. Problem is we do not know what cost impacts this smaller DISHY will have.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/15/2021 06:20 pm
SpaceX Starlink Mega Constellation Faces Fresh Legal Challenge (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacex-starlink-mega-constellation-faces-fresh-legal-challenge/)

Quote
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.”

Quote
“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.

Quote
“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.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/15/2021 09:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 06/15/2021 11:40 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/15/2021 11:58 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 06/17/2021 05:29 am
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.

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.

This may be sorta like the defensive back who interferes with the offensive receiver to prevent a touchdown.  Better to have the ball on the one yard line than to have the points on the board.  So yeah, it would hurt Viasat.  But it wouldn't hurt them as much as letting Starlink develop an unstoppable lead.

I was under the impression that the list of categorical exclusions to NEPA was legislated, but that's not the case.  The Council on Environment Quality writes regulations for what gets excluded, and can change those regulations.

Viasat's lawsuit is therefore a bit more serious than I thought:  Courts can rule that a regulation was made in error, while a law has to be in conflict with some other law or have a constitutional problem to get set aside.  I still expect Viasat to lose, but they're probably not going to get thrown out of court before their argument gets a hearing, which is what would happen if the exclusion had been legislated.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 06/18/2021 05:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Scintillant on 06/18/2021 06:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/18/2021 06:51 am
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Scintillant on 06/18/2021 07:28 am
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

Key section from the FCC's opposition:
Quote
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.

Edit: Having read through both documents, they boil down to "Viasat is absolutely full of it and we have proof". I don't see any chance of a Viasat win here.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 06/18/2021 03:58 pm
When the only move you have left is throwing sand in your opponent's face, you throw sand in your opponents face.  Doesn't mean it is likely to do more than irritate your opponent...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 06/18/2021 11:39 pm
Looks like my "short form" post was removed (probably for the better). Having slogged through the filings...

Viasat's central argument is that NEPA applies and FCC needs to perform a "full" EIS given the scale of the Starlink constellation, and should not come under "categorical exclusion". There are a few other points, but essentially noise in comparison.

FCC's rebuttal is that they reviewed SpaceX's petition and it does not rise to the level requiring a full EIS. In any case, the FCC's due dilligence satisfies NEPA requirements, notwithstanding "categorical exclusion" (emphasis added)...
Quote from: FAA
...
“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.
...

In short, FCC reviewed whether “extraordinary circumstances” applied, performed appropriate due dilligence, and did not find that a full EIS was required (with several cites to support that position). Viasat's complaint is, on the other hand, very squishy when it comes to details that would justify such “extraordinary circumstances”.

Viasat's complaint appears to be little more than an attempt to delay Starlink. To which the FCC also pushed back as contrary to the "public interest" given Viasat's failure to justify “extraordinary circumstances”.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 06/19/2021 07:05 am
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.

I suspect that Viasat cares less about winning the case and more about getting its stay in place.  The name of the game is to slow SpaceX down.  If they can't do that, the case itself could be moot by the time it's adjudicated, because the birds will be on-station.

If Viasat wins the stay, getting that lifted will be considerably harder, because there will be a ruling of imminent harm.  That puts the burden on SpaceX to prove that there's no imminent harm--which is pretty much what they'd have to prove to win the whole case.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 06/20/2021 03:34 am
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.
Another possibility is that SpaceX will just buy out Viasat and bury the whole thing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/20/2021 04:12 am
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.
Another possibility is that SpaceX will just buy out Viasat and bury the whole thing.

The twitter thing was an accident, it's not intentional.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 06/20/2021 02:38 pm
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 FCC Response, the bolded has already been done.  Doing what Viasat asks would just gum up the works and open up new avenues of obstruction.

Edit: Correcting TLA
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/20/2021 08:58 pm
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.

FCC does the authorization for comm sats to be placed in a specific orbit.

FAA just approves that such and such going to orbit X during a specified date period (can be a week, a day or a whole year). But that such FAA approval is dependent on the appropriate other agency approvals such as for a comm sat from the FCC. The FCC approval covers the orbit, equipment on board, materials it is made of, it's on orbit life, it's disposal plans and plans to mitigate adverse effects from loss of command and control over the sat. For a comm sat the FCC is a one-stop-shop for the approval for the sat approval to be placed on orbit. But still needs the independent approval from the FAA for the whatever LV is used to launch the sat.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 06/20/2021 09:48 pm
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.

Yes, FCC (see above (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.msg2254167#msg2254167)).

Setting aside USG missions, do not think process is that byzantine or opaque. If you are going to launch to space, you need a launch license. FAA is responsible for launch licenses. If the payload involves RF, the FCC needs to weigh in. Any factors unrelated to RF are covered by the FAA licensing process. That includes, e.g., National Security concerns; ensuring adherence with US rules and regulations and related international treaties.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/21/2021 12:46 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 06/21/2021 02:00 am
Not entirely true.  FCC is responsible for ODAR (orbital debris assessments) for US payloads.

Not sure what you mean by "not entirely true"? FCC is not entirely responsible for ODAR. For any launch, a number of agencies are typically involved; as in the case of launching a brick it is ultimately the FAA. FCC recognizes that, per Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-363486A1.pdf), FCC, Apr-2020. In particular:
Quote
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.

edit: Apologies, should not have been so "final" in my assertion.  The shorter answer is that, regardless of what US regulatory agency is ultimately responsible, they will look to other agencies for concurrence. One of those grey areas... a payload launched by a US owner on foreign LV, which is what @oldAtlas_Eguy might have been getting at where things become a bit muddy.

Don't want to derail this thread with minutia; a good topic for discussion, but not this thread.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 06/22/2021 05:50 am
This may be relevant in the context of aircraft services...

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive-cathay-working-with-airbus-single-pilot-system-long-haul-2021-06-16/ (https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive-cathay-working-with-airbus-single-pilot-system-long-haul-2021-06-16/)

After the loss of MH370 there had been a push for greater telemetry from aircraft in realtime. Having a minder virtual flight engineer to assist a lone pilot via Starlink may be a way to increase acceptance of lone pilot ops. Especially if you can recruit retired pilots to do the work in a centralized callcenter facility.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 06/22/2021 10:18 am
Musk has violated court orders before. Like the whole Twitter thing.
Another possibility is that SpaceX will just buy out Viasat and bury the whole 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/23/2021 04:19 am
SpaceX's Starlink expects it can provide global coverage around September (https://www.reuters.com/technology/spacexs-starlink-expects-it-can-provide-global-coverage-around-september-2021-06-22/)

Quote
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."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jak Kennedy on 06/23/2021 07:46 am
Apologies if this has been posted before, but I thought this was an interesting video showing demising a solar array drive mechanism. Posted by the European Space Agency showing a Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace part demising in a plasma wind tunnel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YXdv4Ry2XY
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 06/23/2021 10:29 am
we will have continuous global coverage, so that should be like September timeframe
Do I understand correctly that we are talking about a part of the globe between 55 parallels?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 06/23/2021 02:17 pm
we will have continuous global coverage, so that should be like September timeframe
Do I understand correctly that we are talking about a part of the globe between 55 parallels?

Yes
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/24/2021 12:22 am
twitter.com/torybruno/status/1407747990287171587

Quote
I've been asked lots of questions recently about the decay of orbital debris.  So, here's a handy infographic to slake your curiosity.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1407844476710707207

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/24/2021 06:58 am
twitter.com/teslagong/status/1407845408722751493

Quote
Any thoughts on Starlink IPO we would love to invest in the future. Any thoughts on first dibs for Tesla retail investors ?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1407877220543180800

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: tbellman on 06/24/2021 06:36 pm
(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.  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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 06/25/2021 05:26 am
(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. 

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: tbellman on 06/25/2021 08:31 am
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?

That's exactly what I was talking about.  It would almost certainly be possible for SpaceX to design and build StarLink satellites that have an economical lifetime of 10 years; that is, have enough bandwidth built into them from the start that they don't become obsolete until in 10 years.  It's just that doing so tends to become much more expensive.  It also takes longer time to develop, which means entering the market later, which means losing out on revenue.

On a 10 year scale, obsolescence for computers and computer networking equipment is mostly about money.  You can spend money now to buy/build/develop equipment that you only need to replace every 10 years (due to not having enough capacity/bandwidth/computing power), but be prepared to spend significantly more than if you plan on a 5-7 year replacement cycle.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: STS-200 on 06/25/2021 06:52 pm
(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.

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.





Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/25/2021 10:54 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1408558492009566214

Quote
Starlink simultaneously active users just exceeded the strategically important threshold of 69,420 last night!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/26/2021 05:34 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1408560379463077891

Quote
All 72 orbital planes activate in August, plus many other improvements, enabling global coverage, except for polar regions, which will take another 6 months
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/27/2021 02:39 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1408565146218283014

Quote
Airline wifi when?

Quote from: Elon Musk
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: tbellman on 06/27/2021 10:09 am
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.

At that point, they will be outcompeted by technologies that are not so limited (e.g. fiber, or optical communication between ground and satellites)...

Chosing technologies that have inherent limitations doesn't excuse you from competing.  If it is difficult to make large advances over today's capabilities (which would be needed to compete with where other technologies are in 10-15 years), that just argues more for having short economical lifetimes, so replacement of the satellites with something more advanced can be done earlier.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/28/2021 01:01 am
Use the cell phone network experience for how often to replace the sat networks. Not the GEO sat experience. In the Cell phone network experience significant upgrades are happening about every 5 years. In the GEO comm sat experience hardly at all. SpaceX network is modeled after a Cell phone network infrastructure architecture for broadband data. And like such Cell networks will need significant overhauls/upgrades every 5 years to keep up with competition. What that tech base will look like in 5 years is currently no more than a guess. If you guess wrong you go out of business. The longer you wait before deciding on what tech to put into your sats for satisfying the world of 5 years hence the better financially you will be.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jketch on 06/28/2021 04:11 pm
(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.  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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: tbellman on 06/28/2021 07:38 pm
"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.

Exactly.  It's not super-common, but it is done from time to time.  Check for example out Astra 3A (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_3A), which has moved four times since its mission start, with pretty large changes in longitude (160° change in the first move).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/29/2021 04:18 am
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/)

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Scintillant on 06/29/2021 04:48 am
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/)

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/29/2021 01:37 pm
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/)

Quote
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.

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.

Requiring symmetric when most people don't need it is a waste of bandwidth. If people want symmetric, they will pay for it... all the regulators need to do is ensure the market allows competition, so that people are paying a fair price, and not  "though the nose".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/29/2021 03:41 pm
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1409897902382661636

Quote
Elon Musk is speaking virtually at #MWC21 as SpaceX CEO. Livestream: mobileworldlive.com

Thread:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1409898301458161671

Quote
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."

twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1409898684658114564

Quote
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."

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1409898845853605895

Quote
Musk: Starlink is "operational now in about 12 countries, and more are being added every month."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/29/2021 03:51 pm
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1409900069424402434

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1409901143669587970

Quote
Musk: "We're getting close to launching [Starlink] satellite [version] 1.5, which has" satellite interlinks.

twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1409901609275084807

Quote
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."

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1409901930151825408

Quote
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.

Edit to add:

twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1409902305613320198

Quote
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."

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1409902791578038272

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kiwi53 on 06/29/2021 11:50 pm
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/)

Quote
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.

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.

All of these use cases can easily be managed with a 10-20Mb/sec uplink speed, particularly if your cloud backup software is smart enough to throttle its usage - even 5Mb/sec every second from say 11pm until 6am will back up about 12GB data. If you're needing to back up tens of gigabytes of data every night, that doesn't sound like a small business.

Where these use cases hurt is when you have an ADSL connection with only a maximum of 1Mb/sec upload, or a wireless connection that's badly oversold and suffers from lots of congestion particularly from after-school time until late evening. Both of these are depressingly common.

If you need a 50/50, or 100/100, or 1000/1000 connection, then you're probably running a business and should be paying for a 'business' connection.
Just my $0.02
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/30/2021 03:00 am
Quote
Musk: "We're getting close to launching [Starlink] satellite [version] 1.5, which has" satellite interlinks.

Full quote from CNBC article (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/29/elon-musk-.html) that mentions v2.0 as well:

Quote
“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.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/30/2021 03:09 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jarnis on 06/30/2021 10:08 pm
Symmetric bandwidth is considered a requirement for business use. Big part of the push is to get "real" broadband to business and (local) government use in remote areas.

Yes, consumers can usually do fine with seriously constrained upstream vs downstream, but even there 10mbit up is kinda bare minimum these days to qualify as a broadband.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 07/01/2021 12:14 am
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.”


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/03/2021 02:59 am
Semi-annual constellation status report to FCC: https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=10375428

This seems to be news:

Quote
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.

Basically a response to people who says "Oh but nobody knows how well their autonomous collision avoidance system work", this is SpaceX saying "we'll let NASA verify our system".

Also the report on failed satellites are much more detailed, looks like 3 disposal failures in the last 6 months, 2 due to propulsion system failure, one due to solar array failure.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 07/03/2021 03:22 am
Semi-annual constellation status report to FCC: https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=10375428

I was looking for this under the main filing for the constellation (SAT-LOA-20161115-00118), where it should at least be linked, but wasn't.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/03/2021 04:56 pm
Elon’s Starlink discussion from a few days ago

https://youtu.be/gSJrf45IBIA
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/03/2021 09:26 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1411435425789448193

Quote
New SpaceX Starlink cover shows transfer orbit from Earth to Mars
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Ludus on 07/03/2021 10:02 pm
Is this a reveal of a new generation McSquareface antenna? It’s not a shipping box.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 07/03/2021 10:08 pm
Is this a reveal of a new generation McSquareface antenna? It’s not a shipping box.

Or router?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Scintillant on 07/04/2021 01:06 am
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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/05/2021 03:42 am
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).

Yeah, looks too big to be the router. Maybe it's just a full size demo of the cover art they intend to use on the shipping box.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Roy_H on 07/05/2021 05:39 pm
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. I believe this would require larger more powerful satellites with larger antenna. So yes best suited to be launched on Starship.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 07/05/2021 07:28 pm
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
SpaceX  don`t have rights (permission)   from FCC to use it..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: daavery on 07/05/2021 08:26 pm
"More Capable" probably means inter satellite comms
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/05/2021 08:40 pm
"More Capable" probably means inter satellite comms
Musk 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/06/2021 02:54 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/06/2021 03:04 am
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.

Correct. And this is currently the major constraint on subscriber base size. If v2 has 1tb bandwidth, for example, that ups the maximum number of simultaneous users 50 fold, without needing larger numbers of sats.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/06/2021 01:32 pm
"More Capable" probably means inter satellite comms
Musk 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.
I think they had ISLs on the 10 Starlinks they launched on the first Transporter F9 launch.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/06/2021 08:16 pm
"More Capable" probably means inter satellite comms
Musk 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.
I think they had ISLs on the 10 Starlinks they launched on the first Transporter F9 launch.
Yes they did.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: archae86 on 07/07/2021 05:47 pm
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".
As it happens, that is the same string that debug_data for my User Terminal reports under hardwareVersion.  Mine shipped to me just after the middle of April, 2021.  The User Terminal burns somewhat less than half the power of that widely reported for shipments in late 2020.  The photographs from this teardown make clear that there is a major change between the first versions torn down and this one, making the power consumption change, which some have doubted, somewhat more credible.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 07/07/2021 06:03 pm
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/)

Quote
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.

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.
Let hang more spaghetti on people years. Sure.

There is no traffic (beside being media provider) which would command symmetric channel.

 The bil is sponsored by fiber comms and is targeting to protect fiber, because fiber is the only hardware which supports symmetry "intristically".
There is fundamental energetic (and spacial) difference between up-link and down-link hardware in sat comm. Upping uplink to 1gbt will push dishy energy use in kWh range immediately and will demand completely different range of cost/complexity etc. of transmitting hardware.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 07/07/2021 11:01 pm
The terrestrial mobile users are getting desperate here...

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/02/chp-tickets-driver-with-apparent-spacex-starlink-dish-on-hood.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/02/chp-tickets-driver-with-apparent-spacex-starlink-dish-on-hood.html)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/08/2021 04:23 am
https://twitter.com/ralfvandebergh/status/1412778461316460547

Quote
#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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/08/2021 01:44 pm
"More Capable" probably means inter satellite comms
Musk 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.
I think they had ISLs on the 10 Starlinks they launched on the first Transporter F9 launch.
Yes they did.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: virtuallynathan on 07/08/2021 09:45 pm
"More Capable" probably means inter satellite comms
Musk 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.
I think they had ISLs on the 10 Starlinks they launched on the first Transporter F9 launch.
Yes they did.
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.

It's also a free ride, and 3 might be all they could fit. Although I agree with your point about testing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/13/2021 03:49 pm
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)

Quote
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."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/13/2021 06:46 pm
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)

Quote
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."
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kiwi53 on 07/13/2021 11:14 pm
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)

Quote
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."

No, that's not one way to gain entry to the Indian market, it's almost certainly the only way to enter the Indian market in any significant way. The Indian government has very strict 'Make In India' policies, particularly when they perceive that they are capable of producing the product in country.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/14/2021 03:11 pm
New paper: An Updated Comparison of Four Low Earth Orbit Satellite Constellation Systems to Provide Global Broadband (http://systemarchitect.mit.edu/docs/pachler21a.pdf)

Didn't look at this closely, not sure how Amazon's final configuration was able to get so much more bandwidth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 07/14/2021 04:03 pm
I think that paper has been around for a few months.  Overall, while I think these kinds of comparisons are good to do, it's a bit artificial since SpaceX in particular is putting up sats at a furious clip and making changes meanwhile.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 07/14/2021 09:28 pm
New paper: An Updated Comparison of Four Low Earth Orbit Satellite Constellation Systems to Provide Global Broadband (http://systemarchitect.mit.edu/docs/pachler21a.pdf)

Didn't look at this closely, not sure how Amazon's final configuration was able to get so much more bandwidth.
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.
In general, this is a very large theory, divorced from reality and the possibilities of technical implementation.
For example, it indicates that the maximum bandwidth of one StarLink satellite is 19.7 Gbps, but now in practice only one polarization is used and MODCOD is not 64QAM, but rather 8PSK and the real bandwidth is about 6 Gbps per satellite...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/15/2021 06:35 am
twitter.com/crheller/status/1415477554727751686

Quote
Rural IL. Game/Life changer.  Thanks @SpaceX @elonmusk

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1415480145830465539

Quote
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.

twitter.com/adamklotz_/status/1415482282257829890

Quote
Is ping being improved due to new satellites with better hardware, or just more satellites on earth orbit?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1415484292466200578

Quote
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.

twitter.com/ppathole/status/1415488787581259777

Quote
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?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1415527753185730564

Quote
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

twitter.com/ajtourville/status/1415530241544626179

Quote
What wavelength are you using for laser crosslinks... or is that top secret?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1415538311607767040

Quote
Similar to fiber optic. We are trying to ride the terrestrial fiber optic laser technology forcing function, but modified for use in vacuum.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1415538697722793984

Quote
If we can do this successfully, then anything developed for ground/undersea fiber is automatically better in orbit

twitter.com/teslagong/status/1415538828324966400

Quote
No need for base stations eventually?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1415549655639863299

Quote
Some traffic could just go terminal -> satellite -> satellite -> terminal and never touch the regular Internet
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/15/2021 03:42 pm
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-tsla-ark-invest-starlink-20b-cash-flow/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/15/2021 03:48 pm
I see no particularly good reason why Starlink can’t eventually provide as much revenue as Comcast, which is around $100 billion per year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/15/2021 05:45 pm
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/15/2021 07:29 pm
Currently the estimated cost of a manufactured sat is ~$350K.
The cost to launch the sat ~$500K.
The cost of a UT $900.

All of these are large impactors of cash flows such that it will take a long time if these cost profiles continue.

SpaceX is hard at work to change the UT costs to under $500 so that they are no longer a negative cash flow item. And also by launch on a fully reusable Starship where the cost per sat launch is at least a factor of 5X less <$100K. A savings of $400M per 1M new subscribers and a savings of $400M per 1000 new sats or a cash out flow reduction per year of $800M. Enabling the cash flow positive event for Starlink to occur a lot sooner. Just how soon is dependent of the success of cost cutting efforts on the UT and the success of Starship and how soon it becomes the primary launcher of V2.0 Starlink sats that are several times more capable (a lot more bandwidth and even more ISL capability) than the current. My cash flow models show cash flow positive around 2025 or possibly even 2024. Cash flow positive before then would be surprising but it is not impossible. With a total number of subscribers at around 5M in 2024/2025. Revenue just a little more than costs at around $8B. In 8 years time 2029 the profit from Starlink could be ~$8B (revenue ~$14B but costs at~$6B). Cumulative values: expenditures from 2020 through 2029 ~$23B, cumulative revenues ~$56B, cumulative profits over 10 years of operations ~$33B.
NOTE the numbers are from a cost model with a lot of assumptions most of which are optimistic. Threat the values as a significantly optimistic view. also note that the revenue is less than that predicted by a financial analyst though. So it may not be as optimistic as I think.

ADDED:
Footnote:
a easy rule of thumb for corporate valuation is to take the total summed revenue estimated for a company to have over a 10 year period and to use that as how much a company is worth. If in 2029 Starlink has a $20B/yr revenue that would make Starlink have a capitalization value of ~$200B. This is win contrast with its current valuation of $20B to $50B depending on who is asked. A ROI of 300% to 900% in a period of just 8 years. No wonder why investors are elbowing each other to invest in SpaceX now.

Expect that SpaceX will have no problems raising billions in investment cash to finish Starship, keep deploying Starlinks, putting Gateway ground stations, building sat and UT megafactories and generally blowing our minds at the rate of expansion of Starlink with a corollary of an unheard of launch rate to space tonnage in 8 years of >5,000t/yr. Current worldwide tonnage to orbit <1,000t/yr.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/15/2021 09:06 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 07/15/2021 09:43 pm
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-tsla-ark-invest-starlink-20b-cash-flow/

Quote
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.

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!

By "$20B cash flow per year", I suspect they mean net cash flow, i.e. cash in - cash out. Revenue would obviously be a lot higher.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 07/15/2021 09:46 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/15/2021 10:46 pm
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/15/2021 10:47 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/15/2021 10:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/15/2021 10:57 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/15/2021 11:51 pm
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.
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.

Such that once Starlinks start launch in quantity on Starship yearly funds from investments to build out Starlink as well as redirection of revenues to pay for buildout would make available for Starship launch and development of an average of ~$1.5B/yr. A very big NOTE here is that Musk's goal of sending a Starship to Mars required ~$10B in development + launch of the Mars development missions to achieve success of a landing on Mars. In other words Starlink is basically paying for Starship developemnt to go to Mars. No specific investment to pay for Starship since the needed investment for Starlink ends up developing Starship as a byproduct while launching Starlinks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 07/16/2021 12:12 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/16/2021 12:25 am
After thinking about it I think we are all bouncing a little to for off this thread and too close onto the purview of others in this same section.

Starship rapid development is a byproduct of Starlink launches on Starship. Sometimes this is called a twofer.
$1 spent for $2 worth of activity.

A tight synergy between Starship and Starlink on costs.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/16/2021 01:11 am
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.

1,2,3,4,5:
Investors are interested in SpaceX because it potentially has a cash cow in the form of Starlink. Starlink can generate a lot of real revenue outside of the traditional aerospace industry. It's not quite "blue sky," but considering SpaceX's level, it's close. These investors ARE primarily interested in Starlink (and possibly a bit of other things like point to point, although that's much less near-term or likely). SpaceX wouldn't be able to convince these investors that launch is gonna be super profitable. BECAUSE IT'S NOT. Launch is usually a tiny portion of the world's space industry revenue and even smaller portion of the profits. The money is in telecommunications, i.e. Starlink. So yeah, by choosing to make Starlink so big that it has to be launched on Starship, thus linking Starship and Starlink, Elon is able to make investors that are only really excited about Starlink invest in Starship. (And again, it's perfectly rational to only really be excited about Starlink vs launch. Launch is puny and not usually very high margin.)

6 and 7: These are both technologies needed for making Mars trips feasible.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/17/2021 12:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: aero on 07/17/2021 02:23 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Scintillant on 07/17/2021 07:58 am
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?

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

Verizon is probably the closest comparison, $133B revenue/year with market cap of about $233B. On the other hand, Microsoft has $143B revenue/year with market cap of $2.1T. Given the hype and popularity that Elon's companies have, I would bet that a $120B/year Starlink could easily be a trillion dollar company. Heck, Tesla has a market cap of $633B on revenue of $31B/year, and I don't see Starlink having less hype than Tesla.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mariusuiram on 07/18/2021 10:52 pm
Without getting into all the accounting debate which is definitely blurring a lot of lines, I'll just say its relatively unrealistic that SPaceX will continue to collect $100/month on average if they approach 100 million users or even less.

To capture a larger share of the market in the US and particularly in other parts of the world, that cost will come down. I know they have said they probably want to have a 1 tier system, but first off that tier could be priced lower. Or more likely they will outsource lower tier products and only have a direct consumer relationship for that premium product at the higher monthly rate.

Running customer service for a 100 million user entity would be a massive undertaking and a whole tangent from what they are focused on.

1. I suspect competitive pressure from normal broadband as well as additional constellations pushes down their monthly rate
2. Cheaper services will likely get offered through WISPs, similar or even full ISPs in non-US markets where SpaceX either offers bulk/wholesale service or at least isnt customer facing.
3. If they really got to 100 million+ users I would guess their effective revenue per user would be below $50/month
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/19/2021 01:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 07/19/2021 01:26 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Redclaws on 07/19/2021 01:52 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/19/2021 04:16 am
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.
I expect Starlink to maximize revenue. And I don't think they'll take steps to have LESS total revenue than Comcast.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mariusuiram on 07/19/2021 03:00 pm
Starlink will aim to maximize total revenue not revenue per user.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/19/2021 03:57 pm
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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/19/2021 05:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Redclaws on 07/19/2021 06:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/19/2021 06:32 pm
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 has been used as a shared resource for Native American reservation schools, other places.

I suspect that’s how Starlink will benefit many people. But as people get the benefit from starlink and digital connectivity generally, they may be able to afford their own independent access and there you go.

So Starlink is well positioned to both assist in and benefit from the growth of the Global South and rural areas generally that suffer from underdevelopment.

Over a multi-decade timescale, that is not an insignificant factor.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Bob Niland on 07/19/2021 06:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/19/2021 07:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 07/19/2021 07:25 pm
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.

As in every business, there will be a large number of low-paying customers, and a small number of big fish. They can keep the average at $100 if for every 200 people that pay $25 they get one airliner, container ship or data center that pays $15000.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: groundbound on 07/20/2021 02:13 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/20/2021 02:24 am
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?
You can't resell bandwidth on Starlink. You can give it away for free, I guess.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 07/20/2021 02:37 am
Not 100% sure this is Starlink related, but since the article is talking about the Taiwanese satellite component supply chain it seems likely.  One of the companies is a GaAs foundry.

https://news.satnews.com/2021/07/18/taiwans-developing-interest-in-leo-satellites/
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/20/2021 02:58 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/20/2021 08:51 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/20/2021 09:04 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Redclaws on 07/20/2021 09:24 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/20/2021 09:53 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/20/2021 04:54 pm
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.

Yup, I used your 10% duty cycle number in my computation.

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.

Note that it's not the throughput of the bird that governs the number of subscribers.  Instead, it's the uplink/downlink bandwidth.  Divide it by two to accommodate the gateway bandwidth as well.  ISL only helps to the extent that it lets there be more subs in places where there aren't gateways and may, at the margins, allow transfer of uplink/downlink traffic from regions where there are lots of subs to a region with an underutilized gateway.  But I'd guess that ISL doesn't really help overall capacity that much.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: tbellman on 07/20/2021 06:01 pm
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.

M.E.T. used an oversubscription factor (which I bolded in the quote above) to account for that.  The 100 Mbit/s they used is the connection speed, not average utilized bandwidth.

But I do think looking at utilized bandwidth, like you do, is better than using an oversubscription factor on the nominal bandwidth.  Used average bandwidth usually doesn't go up as quickly as the connection speed.  People with 1 Gbit/s to their home doesn't download 10 times as much as people with 100 Mbit/s; they might download only twice as much, if even that, but their downloads finish faster, and the line has more idle time.

However, 1 Mbit/s per subscriber I suspect will be too little.  You can't look at averages over the day, but at averages during the peak period of the day, e.g. when everyone is tuning in to watch Rocketlab's first landing of humans on Venus, or the opening of the Olympic games, or when everyone is locked in at home and doing Zoom meetings.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/20/2021 06:15 pm
A 10x oversubscription factor is too small for something with 100mbps bandwidth. More like 50-100x oversubscription is more typical for those speeds.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/20/2021 06:57 pm
The other item for this calculation is that once Starship starts launching Starlinks. It will launch the V2 versions. Which will likely have a 4X total bandwidth of that of the V1 versions. Also by 2025 with Starship launching the V2 sats as fast as they can and the need to get the sats up that also have V band by 50% of total by Nov 2024. That by end of 2025 there is likely to be >10,000 sats up of V2 bandwidth capability. In this scenario even at the very pessimistic over subscription averages numbers fro revenue by 2025.

4[X bandwidth increase for each v2 sat]*5,000subscribers/sat*10,000sats*5%over population = 10M subscribers -> $12B+ revenue

That is just with the first 2 constellation approvals for the 4K and 8K sat constellations 12K total. 50% deployed required by Nov 2024  of6,000 sats and 100% all 12,000 sats by Nov 2027.

So minimum revenue by 2027 would be >$12B and maximum revenue at 4X larger at 100/1 oversubscription to available bandwidth would be >$48B.

NOTE a positive cash flow where revenue exceeds spending would occur when revenue passes ~$4B.

All items are discussing per year totals.

Edit: My end result numbers were correct but my equation as written out was not. Corrected the equation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 07/21/2021 11:26 am

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/21/2021 12:30 pm

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

Information on the correlated distributions (not average values) of market prices and incomes, are needed for this assessment.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/21/2021 01:22 pm

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 not so sure about Europe.  They are targeting more remote and isolated regions.  Europe has plenty of islands and remote areas, especially in the north.  It's smaller and could be easier to serve in some regards too.

The global market is still large regardless, many of the revenue calculations seem to be US centric, which is a starting point, but not the whole picture.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/21/2021 03:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 07/21/2021 04:18 pm
I'm convinced that not even SpaceX has a clear idea about how many people will use their service at any particular price.  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.  And the $100 price is as good as any to introduce the service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 07/21/2021 04:27 pm
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.

This is a very good point.   Many financial estimates are highly fictional, perhaps because there are huge investments to be had today if the estimates are sky high

Another point is that the total dollar value from niche markets for broadband could be bigger than the bread and butter consumer markets.  Think ships, planes, RVs, vacation cabins, scientific outposts, oil rigs, cell tower back haul, etc.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 07/21/2021 04:39 pm
Yeh, it's like "oh everybody in my area has broadband" and then you start listing all of the exceptions, which turns into a huge number.  Or maybe there are some countries and areas where the number isn't huge.  But you wouldn't know that until you actually offer the service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/21/2021 04:53 pm
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.

When countries get rich, it makes sense to put in more fiber.  That doesn't mean that Starlink doesn't have a market before they get rich, and maybe the even grow the market by enabling the countries to become richer sooner, but terrestrial infrastructure is going to be cheaper than satellite infrastructure just as soon as a particular region can amortize the fiber investment.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 07/22/2021 01:16 am
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.
...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Scintillant on 07/22/2021 04:40 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 07/22/2021 04:53 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/23/2021 06:07 am
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/spacex-wins-court-ruling-that-lets-it-continue-launching-starlink-satellites/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 07/24/2021 07:37 pm
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.
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 income
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Kiwi53 on 07/25/2021 01:45 am
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.

If these new antennas work and are not astronomically ludicrously expensive, I wouldn't be at all surprised if SpaceX bought the manufacturer or at least licensed the design and aimed it at their mobile / shipping / aircraft market.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SpeakertoAnimals on 07/25/2021 05:06 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 07/25/2021 05:09 am
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?

Yes.  They already have several contracts to support testing of Starlink by DoD, including using third party antennas.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/27/2021 05:15 am
New update email sent to customers, from reddit (https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/os9oye/starlink_update_email_20210726/):

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/27/2021 05:32 am
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 started a new thread at Advanced Concepts section for this: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54390.0

Seems more appropriate since this idea has nothing to do with official Starlink design or plans.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/28/2021 05:12 pm
twitter.com/djsnm/status/1420416925713133570

Quote
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

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1420430105780891655

Quote
Orbital precession takes a long time. With Starship & Starlink V2.0, hopefully we can direct inject to target orbit.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: archae86 on 07/29/2021 02:33 am
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/29/2021 03:16 am
Quote
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.

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.

Fewer sats per launch becomes less of an issue if launches are cheap.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: guckyfan on 07/29/2021 04:46 pm
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.

It also lets them ramp up the flight number they need in preparation for manned flight.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/31/2021 02:58 pm
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:

Quote
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).

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Keldor on 08/01/2021 04:24 am
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:

Quote
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).

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.

It could be that they're interested in simulating the environment inside the payload bay of Starship.  They'll need to test the support and deployment mechanisms for Starlink in Starship, and this sounds like the best environment possible (on the ground) for doing so.

This could also be for more general payload bay testing - make sure none of the materials are outgassing, that nothing is going to fall apart when shaken too hard, and so forth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Scintillant on 08/01/2021 05:57 am
This was posted a few days ago but haven't seen it mentioned yet: DAF completes Architecture Demonstration and Evaluation 5 (https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2711472/daf-completes-architecture-demonstration-and-evaluation-5/)

Quote from: USAF
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 08/04/2021 05:49 am
Scott Manley: How Do Starlink Satellites Navigate To Their Final Operational Orbits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIQr1UyhwWk
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 08/04/2021 05:51 am
SpaceX’s Starlink app gets big update to help find clear sky (https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/3/22608270/spacex-starlink-app-upgrade-beta-active-users)

Quote from: TheVerge
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 08/05/2021 04:01 am
SpaceX Preps 'Ruggedized' Starlink Dish for Cars, Boats, and Planes (https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-preps-ruggedized-starlink-dish-for-cars-boats-and-planes)

Quote from: PcMag
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 08/08/2021 07:44 am
Keep Environmental Red Tape Out of Outer Space (https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/keep-environmental-red-tape-out-outer-space)

Quote from: The Heritage Foundation
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 08/16/2021 06:49 am
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: wccftech
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/16/2021 12:41 pm
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: wccftech
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.

$3B a month, $36B a year revenue in the US alone.

I was trying to tell some friends on the weekend that Starlink will eventually be worth more than $200B market cap, they looked at me like I was an alien. 

I would not be surprised if in 10 years that Starlinks market cap is over $500B.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 08/19/2021 04:19 am
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/19/2021 04:26 am
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)

I got to “group of astronomy professors”, and then filed it in my “ignore” category.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 08/19/2021 04:57 am
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.

Quote
the 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/19/2021 05:40 pm
Summary of latest info, as reported by (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2279515#msg2279515) gongora:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/19/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-new-capabilities-starship-launch.html

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1428410898591387653

Quote
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."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: mn on 08/20/2021 03:26 pm
So I was at a random place in Goergia yesterday and this women is serving breakfast and she's telling us:

"You have to get Norton 360 on your phones. Starlink just went up last month (?) and it is reading all your messages and WhatsApps and everything on your phone, and it's connected to the NSA...".

Don't say you weren't warned ;)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/20/2021 04:14 pm
Quote from: -------
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/21/2021 11:40 pm
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.

Quote
the 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.

Don't forget the extra delta-v for doglegs and/or plane changes.  With that, it's hard to draw any mass conclusions.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ZachS09 on 08/22/2021 02:08 am
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.

Could it be in the mid-40s range?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: russianhalo117 on 08/22/2021 02:58 am
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.

Could it be in the mid-40s range?
Gunter's Skyrocket.de lists 40 as a calculated guess.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 08/22/2021 03:37 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/22/2021 03:41 pm
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?

No
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/22/2021 08:05 pm
twitter.com/planet4589/status/1429525312577183746

Quote
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

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1429525762034606081

Quote
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)

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1429533923109969928

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/23/2021 08:45 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1429907171639103489

Quote
100k terminals shipped!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 08/24/2021 11:21 am
twitter.com/planet4589/status/1429525312577183746

Quote
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 presentation this image came from is this (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1081071029897/SpaceX%20Orbital%20Debris%20Meeting%20Ex%20Parte%20(8-10-21).pdf)

I don't think the automatic collision avoidance explanation is really new, we have known for a while that this is how it is supposed to work. What's new is the Starlink-on-Starlink collision avoidance:

Quote
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

This helps to answer concerns like this: SpaceX Starlink satellites responsible for over half of close encounters in orbit, scientist says (https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-collision-alerts-on-the-rise)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 08/24/2021 11:55 am
Musk’s Space Push Forces Satellite Rivals Into Merger Mode (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-20/musk-s-space-push-forces-satellite-rivals-into-merger-mode)

Quote from: Bloomberg
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.

Quote from: Bloomberg
“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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/24/2021 03:53 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1429907171639103489

Quote
100k 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 08/24/2021 04:11 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1429907171639103489

Quote
100k 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.

At $20 million a flight, 60 sats per flight and a five year lifetime, that's enough revenue to keep a 1800 sat constellation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/24/2021 05:59 pm
A small Note here is that there is ~600K subscriptions awaiting terminals worldwide. So as fast as SpaceX can make terminals there is plenty of customers waiting for them. In other-words the terminals don't sit on a warehouse shelf.

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.

My research (search function use) of this thread indicates a build rate of terminals at ~16,000 a month. By EOY 2021 could possibly be around 160K shipped and  ~$16M revenue/month. At the continued 16K per month subscriber growth a revenue from subscribers for the year of 2022 of ~$304M. At this rate continued through 2023 as well would have a subscribers revenue for the year of 2023 of ~$475M and a total of 550k subscribers at the end of 2023.

But the build rate of terminals is not likely to remain at 16K a month for long.

Do we have a production start date for the new UT factory?

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.

ADDED: Corrections and some additions.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: c4fusion on 08/24/2021 07:05 pm
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.

Nearly 2 months ago, Elon said he hoped that in one year time they could hit half a million subscribers:  https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/29/elon-musk-.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/24/2021 11:05 pm
<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.
<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.


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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/24/2021 11:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: unitx on 08/25/2021 01:51 am
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?



I don't think the factory will be in production for a while yet.

(image courtesy Joe Tegtmeyer's wonderful Tesla Texas gigafactory drone flights - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4UwT7zCc-T_BN9_E45FVNA )
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/25/2021 02:03 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 08/25/2021 02:13 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/25/2021 02:36 am
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.

Ah, ok, must have switched it around. V1.5 with laser links, V2.0 with added power as well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: archae86 on 08/25/2021 02:20 pm
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...)

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]
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 08/25/2021 08:22 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: tbellman on 08/25/2021 09:45 pm
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

Unsubstantiated.

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.

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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 08/25/2021 10:43 pm
Most likely just a software update that had to be activated across the entire network at once, let's say because they're getting ready for their first laser linked satellites or a new ground station protocol.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/26/2021 12:49 am
Well this is earth shattering news…Now let’s discuss my world renowned 4G mobile phone company who has system outages multiple times a year, much to my (and millions of other users) irritation.

And they have no “Beta phase” “Better than Nothing” excuse to fall back on.


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 08/26/2021 02:21 am
Although I agree that downtime is no stranger to anyone using the internet in general and satellite internet in particular (I remember how often Wildblue used to have "outages" during their unlimited download windows), I wouldn't want to discourage people from reporting it, and am interested in informed speculation as to the cause.

Clearly, they might be doing the central processing thing. That might even be necessitated by their billing system. Or it might have been a bad patch, quickly corrected.

But as long as Starlink is one company running its stuff with unified software, outages can happen.

We'll have to see if they can manage a better track record than the existing competition...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 08/26/2021 12:43 pm
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...)

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]
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 08/26/2021 12:57 pm
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
Unsubstantiated.

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.

This is not a question of architecture, but physics, you cannot control processes or objects (like a gateway and a user terminal) with a process (latency) time of 20..40 milliseconds, if the time until your command reaches the control object (for example GW  in New Zealand)  is 100..150 milliseconds
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ulm_atms on 08/26/2021 12:58 pm
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...)

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]
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...

Don't forget the Nashville downtown bombing that took out ATT for quite a few days.  These things happen.  Hell, Cloudflare takes down a chunk of internet every once and a while.  ;D
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JamesH65 on 08/26/2021 01:17 pm
<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.
<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.


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.

Not just Malaysia. The entire chip supply chain is "on fire" (according to my boss - https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/20/raspberry_pi_supply_eben_upton_interview/). I've seen chip lead times double, if not more. Some chips are on 104 week leadtimes.

It really is a mess, and I would expect Starlink to be suffering in exactly the same way as everyone else is. They don't have any more purchasing power as their volumes are fairly low (we buy many more than 600k chips a month, of various types).



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 08/26/2021 04:59 pm
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...)

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]
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...

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 08/26/2021 09:22 pm
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...)

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]
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...

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...)

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]
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...

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 08/26/2021 10:24 pm
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...)

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]
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...

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...)

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]
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...

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.

I read Moelzer's post to mean it was a provider other than Starlink that went offline in Michigan. I could be wrong though.

And thanks for the user report. 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.

And that reminds me, coming up on September, still waiting for that Dishy....
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 08/27/2021 01:50 am
>
>
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.
>

MI suffered up to several days of power, wireless and wired net outages. Felled trees on lines, blown transformers, etc. 3rd time this summer for us.

Don't like the weather? Wait a minute, or cross the street.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 08/27/2021 03:12 am
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.

It doesn't really mind clouds or rain or even most thunderstorms. We had a thunderstorm least week with no issues that I noticed. It's just the really intense storms that do it, and we've had more than the normal number of those this year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 08/29/2021 12:16 pm
Why pigeons mean peril for satellite broadband (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58061230) (BBC). Something I'd never have thought about. Pretty decent background piece too.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/01/2021 05:48 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1433081862918975496

Quote
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."

twitter.com/djsnm/status/1433087164946911237

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1433108018413981698

Quote
Our satellites launching in next few months have inter-satellite laser links, so no local downlink needed. Probably active in 4 to 6 months.

twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1433109248007933960

Quote
How does transmitting into a country without a local downlink work on the regulatory side?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1433123220643717120

Quote
They can shake their fist at the sky
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 09/02/2021 12:23 am
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1433109248007933960

Quote
How does transmitting into a country without a local downlink work on the regulatory side?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1433123220643717120

Quote
They can shake their fist at the sky

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.

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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/02/2021 12:43 am
https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1433114425100099584
Quote
Crowd-sourced Starlink performance stats https://starlinkstatus.space Overall and by ground station

https://starlinkstatus.space
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 09/02/2021 12:46 am
>
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.
>

DBA 3D Systems is working on a portable terminal for USSOCOM which would interface with Starlink. 

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/dujud-awarded-ussocom-contract-develop-satcom-terminal-interface-starlink/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/02/2021 01:03 am
<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.


Also interesting is that certain semi-pro web broadcasters we know have requested a more robust and portable Starlink ground terminal to do remote webcasts. Certainly something the spooks will find useful.


 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Scintillant on 09/02/2021 04:05 am
<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.

Why is this? Do you know of specific characteristics of the Starlink setup that would require such a  setup? To me, this just sounds like speculation, and we should probably keep speculation clearly marked as such so that it doesn't turn into "facts".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/02/2021 07:01 am
twitter.com/djsnm/status/1433112911094845440

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1433320085519618048

Quote
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!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/02/2021 09:44 am
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.

the problem of signal attenuation during rain is solved by an automatic signal power control system. The SNR parameter is measured at the terminal and reported to the gateway and then to the satellite, which increases the power to compensate for rain losses and return the SNR level to 9 dB. StarLink has a very small cell size and therefore automatic signal power control system very efficiently and accurately operates within EPFD limits
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/02/2021 01:13 pm
They can shake their fist at the sky
there are 2 aspects
Is it legal or not? and what is the responsibility for this? By definition, the use of radio frequency spectrum on the territory of the state is possible only with its permission (I do not think that the FCC will be happy if the Chinese operator begins to provide its service somewhere in Texas).

But only a state recognized by all, represented by its Ministry of Communications, can complain to the ITU. Considering that the former Minister of Communications of Afshanistan is now delivering pizza in Germany, ITU will not receive such a complaint soon .. But if it does, it will be forwarded to the FCC and asked to comply with ITU rules

Therefore, at sea, beyond 12 miles from the border, service can be provided to anyone and anyone.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DreamyPickle on 09/02/2021 02:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 09/02/2021 03:06 pm
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.
ITU (and consequently FCC) can react on complains of their partner in respective country. Their afghan partner is dead. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/02/2021 03:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tomness on 09/02/2021 05:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/02/2021 07:18 pm
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.

Indeed, the DoD is a special customer that gets what it wants.  SpaceX would transmit.  And the Taliban would shake their fists at the sky.

The receive side is different, obviously.  SpaceX can determine who should receive and probably would not turn on receive for anybody but the DoD. The Taliban are being sponsored by Pakistan, after all.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 09/02/2021 07:46 pm
The Taliban are being sponsored by Pakistan, after all.
Let's not go there please.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/02/2021 09:49 pm
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.

ITU is an organization created within the UN, and even during the Cold War, it solved all issues only by consensus. If tomorrow a US provider starts transmitting a signal for the Internet in another country without the permission of the local government, then tomorrow the Chinese satellite operator may start transmitting a signal on the frequency of communication between pilots and dispatchers at the airfield in USA.
Radio frequency control and management  is very delicate work and
 politicians better stay away from it
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/03/2021 04:11 am
twitter.com/djsnm/status/1433112911094845440

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1433320085519618048

Quote
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!

Unfortunately this answer is less than clear, "Processing is not an issue" could mean there's no onboard processing needed, or it could mean there's already enough processing power, or it could mean adding new processing power is trivial. Not sure which is it...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/03/2021 05:03 pm
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 ..
:-)

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 09/03/2021 05:26 pm
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 don’t know if you are joking or not.

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


https://youtu.be/QEIUdMiColU





Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/04/2021 03:38 am
Not sure about the authenticity of this but interesting post from reddit: Obstructions, slower speeds, and 2021-22 customers update from Starlink support (https://reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/phb0xy/obstructions_slower_speeds_and_202122_customers/)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/04/2021 04:32 pm
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 don’t know if you are joking or not.
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
I've seen a lot in the movies.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 09/04/2021 05:27 pm
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 don’t know if you are joking or not.
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
I've seen a lot in the movies.
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.
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.

Either way, the routed distance will be very similar to the great circle distance.

Latency will also include onboard switching time which can be anything, depending on implementation details.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 09/04/2021 06:53 pm
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 don’t know if you are joking or not.
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
I've seen a lot in the movies.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/04/2021 09:15 pm
Yes my CD Walkman back in 1984 had solved the problem of lasers tracking targets in a chaotic motion environment.

Another note is that the distance between sats with an assumed of just 20 sats in a plane is 2,100km not 4,000. The larger number later sat constellation of 12,000 or 30,000 is likely to have less than 1,000km between sats.

Because the steering of the mirrors or whatever is aiming the laser can access accurate IMU and orbital data for both itself and for where its target is. The search space for the target will not be large. So link up may be measured on just a couple of seconds. Once link is established tracking should be very easy to maintain link. Here the Note about a laser terminal in a sat around the Moon that linked to one on Earth surface where they were 200,000km apart with larger optics to maintain SNR so spot sizes were still very small even though the distance was 200X farther. This took place about a decade ago.

The reason it took SpaceX so long in implementing it is they wanted a system that was inexpensive and also that would fully burn up on reentry.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 09/04/2021 09:52 pm
Yes my CD Walkman back in 1984 had solved the problem of lasers tracking targets in a chaotic motion environment.
...

? Pedant alert... Question relevance. What they achieved is a far cry from open- or free-field sources and targets at significant distance operating at ms or sub-ms closure rates. Up until relatively recently, appears that has still been a significant challenge (?). Grain of salt... my last encounter with those challenges was in the 90's, and even with highly stabilized free-space platforms, it was still a b*tch.

Other than that, agree and hope-expect that they have overcome those challenges.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: joek on 09/04/2021 10:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/05/2021 06:21 am
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1434335362151854082

Quote
It appears SpaceX’s Starlink was used by the local Louisiana government in the aftermath of Hurricane Ida:

twitter.com/stcharlesgov/status/1434305936718540802

Quote
Thanks to @elonmusk and @SpaceX for getting us connected port #hurricaneida Communications is key in our recovery. @SpaceXStarlink
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 09/05/2021 11:42 am
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.
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.
Good laser targeting systems use very similar (to identical) mechanical subsysems.

Piezo is good for heavy optical observation devices and it was used pretty much only there as a mechanical device.

Fun fact. It is fully analogue system and had required human readers. The soviet had special "registration" institutes "manned" by wives of the engineers working in the industry...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/05/2021 06:06 pm
So link up may be measured on just a couple of seconds.
Yes! You are absolutely right
This is exactly what I said  :D
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/05/2021 06:16 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/05/2021 06:32 pm
I really wouldn't expect much switching of the lasers between different satellites.  The laser terminals on the two satellites need to know to point at each other.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 09/05/2021 06:32 pm
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?
Probably a fraction of that. COTS galvo's do tens of kpps (kilo points per second). A bespoke galvo should be faster than that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: daavery on 09/06/2021 01:18 am
30K points/sec is a common laser galvo speed, almost every laster engraver and every laser projector are galvo based

https://www.laserfocusworld.com/optics/article/16567973/product-focus-galvanometer-scanners-what-you-need-to-know-to-buy-a-galvopositioner

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 09/06/2021 04:34 am
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:  one pointing to the next bird in-plane, one to the previous bird in-plane, one to the nearest bird in the next plane to the "right", and one to the nearest bird in the next plane to the "left".  The right and left birds will slowly migrate back and forth across the current plane near max inclination, but it happens very slowly and predictably.  The routing doesn't involve the current bird suddenly making a decision to stab a laser beam halfway across the globe and some bird with a massive relative speed.

So there will be no mirrors suddenly turning 90ş.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 09/06/2021 11:59 am
My understanding is that there are four lasers: 

I see on this photo only one for one side of sats ..  Total is 2
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 09/06/2021 12:05 pm
Can somebody circle the lasers. I don't know what a laser on a satellite looks like.

EDIT: never mind. I see the red now. I am a little red color blind.
They sure are big!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/06/2021 07:40 pm
I see on this photo only one for one side of sats ..  Total is 2

We can't see the whole satellite, and those satellites may not be the final design.  I think those were mostly for testing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/07/2021 03:45 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1435247158551322636

Quote
[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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/07/2021 04:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: snotis on 09/07/2021 11:34 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6dJmJm8eyQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6dJmJm8eyQ)

V3 user terminals to be rounded rectangles instead of circles (rumor).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 09/08/2021 12:13 am
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?
15kHz=90* freedom.(-45--+45 degrees),
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/08/2021 08:34 am
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.

I suspect SpaceX is aiming for way more than 5M subscribers by 2030. They would want their full system operating by then. 30M users would probably be closer to the target.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/09/2021 11:15 am
SpaceX VP Jonathan Hofeller fills in for Gwynne Shotwell at Satellite 2021 Conference, Satellite Connectivity Panel:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1435590157122539527

Quote from: Michael Sheetz
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


https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1435591227706167304

Quote from: Michael Sheetz
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


https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1435594718168104961

Quote from: Michael Sheetz
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


https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1435599454304980995

Quote from: Michael Sheetz
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


https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1435601071511154691

Quote from: Michael Sheetz
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


https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1435603013448704001

Quote from: Michael Sheetz
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


https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1435603721732435972

Quote from: Michael Sheetz
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 09/10/2021 02:52 am
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."
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.

Edzieba makes an interesting point here, but if  I remember correctly, the FCC documents on Gen2 sats suggested they were 4x the size of current Starlinks sats (by mass? by max cross sectional area? by max dimensions? antenna size?) I think the SDA stuff has to fly on Falcon 9 though, so that would suggest if Gen2 is based on the heavy SDA sat design, then it isn't volumetrically optimized for Starship per se? Or is it optimized for Starship and they take some kind of volume penalty due the shape not being a great fit in the current Falcon 9 payload envelope? From what we understand, the extra large payload fairing for the Space Force missions is not a recoverable design, so they are unlikely to blow them on Starlink, which means the heavy SDA sat must fit in the conventional fairing.

Though they could be entirely dissimilar, and Gen2 is optimized for Starship launch completely with no Falcon 9 fallback.

Or my pet theory that 4 Starlinks dock together in a line with DogTag grapple points after launch as an expedient solution for tighter spot density, using the ISL lasers as a crude optical docking sensor...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/10/2021 07:55 pm
twitter.com/tgmetsfan98/status/1436397292181917706

Quote
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:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/09/first-completion-more-launches/

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1436415954762805254

Quote
Satellites with “lasers” in “space” [strokes white cat]
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/11/2021 10:20 am
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
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 09/15/2021 02:18 am
The recent collision risk stuff moved to separate thread due to massive walls of text.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/17/2021 05:54 am
SpaceX emphasizes coordination with other satellite operators (https://spacenews.com/spacex-emphasizes-coordination-with-other-satellite-operators/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/17/2021 06:27 am
twitter.com/overshieid/status/1438747861181550595

Quote
when will starlink come out of beta

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1438748063527575555

Quote
Next month
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 09/17/2021 07:52 pm
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.

My testing shows an average downtime of only about 0.2% over several days. 2.4% seems like a lot.

The rest of the assessment is fairly consistent with my experience.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/18/2021 01:24 am
twitter.com/erdayastronaut/status/1439005922882433028

Quote
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!

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1439035515517509636

Quote
Yeah. We’d use our Ka parabolics or laser links for Dragon, Starship or other spacecraft as soon as they got above cloud level.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/22/2021 07:28 pm
Interesting "free" application of Starlink for positioning information.

Quote
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.

https://news.osu.edu/spacex-satellite-signals-used-like-gps-to-pinpoint-location-on-earth
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cosmicvoid on 09/23/2021 02:21 am
I signed up for Starlink in early February, and like so many others I wondered what's taking so long. Well, today I got the email saying my kit is ready to ship. Only 7.5 months waiting. I wonder if this is the start of a flood of new installations, or am I just lucky.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/23/2021 06:28 pm
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1441106716590952465

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1441106867850080272

Quote
"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."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Vultur on 09/24/2021 09:10 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Yggdrasill on 09/24/2021 09:16 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 09/28/2021 04:25 pm
NEPA Does Not Apply in Outer Space, Argues TechFreedom in Amicus Brief (https://techfreedom.org/nepa-does-not-apply-in-outer-space-argues-techfreedom-in-amicus-brief/)

Quote from: TechFreedom
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.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: markbike528cbx on 09/29/2021 06:49 am
Why is Starlink using V-band for the very-LEO shell?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_band
"60 GHz is attractive for secure satellite crosslinks because .....lying in a strong absorption band of oxygen, provides protection against intercept by ground-based adversaries.
These [terrestrial] systems are primarily used for high capacity, short distance (less than 1 mile) communications."

So absorption is so bad1 that it is used as a security measure.   V-band is mostly unlicensed as it has very short range capability.

Why not K band?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_band_(IEEE)
The absorption is not nearly as bad, the band sits between Ku and Ka, so similar
antenna/electronic setups can be used.

Will Starlink AND user terminals be able to "burn" through the absorption?

One thing I noticed is that as long as you are 60 degrees or less from vertical (at or more than 30 degrees from the horizon) the absorption is close to the low value of 0 degrees (looking directly overhead).

https://lilibots.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-starlink-vleo.html    has some interesting reasons, mostly to do with bandwidth.

1) FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Bulletin Number 70   July, 1997
Millimeter Wave Propagation: Spectrum Management Implications
Specifically Figure 5 (attached)

First time standalone entry.  Please move to an appropriate thread ( I couldn't find one).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/29/2021 02:21 pm
Like a few others, SpaceX has a license from the FCC to operate a constellation of ~7,500 satellites in the V-band.  But it has not made any moves to put that constellation into service, leading to speculation that the company will surrender the license.

The problem with that constellation is that the user terminals operate in the V-band rather than the Ku/Ka-bands and are therefore very susceptible to weather.  SpaceX could request a modification of its license to operate the user terminals in the Ku/Ka-bands, but so far has not done so.  Instead, it has applied for a 30,000-satellite constellation with user terminals in the Ku/Ka-bands and ground stations in the E-band.  That constellation can more readily adjust operations to account for weather while insuring that users won't have problems.

SpaceX could operate its ground stations in the K-band, but wouldn't it be better to operate them in the V-band or E-band, like it wants to do?  It seems that few operate there.  And your chart shows that they are about the same with regard to attenuation as the K-band.  Higher frequencies equate to higher throughput, all else equal.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: daavery on 09/29/2021 05:37 pm
higher frequencies do no mean higher thruput, but with higher frequencies typically you are allocated bigger chunks of frequencies and so can use more bandwidth
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: markbike528cbx on 10/04/2021 04:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: markbike528cbx on 10/04/2021 06:06 pm
Dang, I hate being late to the party and having to catch up.
https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-LOA-20200526-00055/2378669.pdf  (2020)  "Generation 2"

Mentions V-band in passing (twice in same paragraph), so I think that low V-band 40-50GHz is probably just a place holder.

E-band for use Satellite to Gateway 71-76GHz. Gateway to Satellite 81-86GHz.

All user terminals are Ku or Ka. Some are close to the max K-band absorption.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/04/2021 10:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/05/2021 04:27 am
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.

I've been betting second half of 2022.  But all you need to do to start using Starship is get launch semi-reliable.  You don't have to have reusability working for either SuperHeavy or Starship.  Every Starlink mission will be yet another test opportunity to debug reusability.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: soltasto on 10/05/2021 09:42 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/05/2021 10:11 pm
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.

I'm pretty sure that 53ş can be reached launching down the Yucatan Channel with a dogleg further south once the ground track stays out to sea and avoids the Yucatan Peninsula.  It takes a hefty amount of delta-v (IIRC it's about 1200m/s), but Starship has an awful lot of performance.  It should still be able to get 200 v1.5's to LEO. That's basically the F9's Starlink arrangement, but two separate stacks, with each stack 50 high instead of 30 high.  That should be 52t.  Starship should get roughly 10,550m/s of delta-v with that payload mass.

I agree that they'll redesign the PAF and dispenser for v2.  But there's no need to wait.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/06/2021 02:33 am
Semi-annual constellation status report to FCC: https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=10375428

FCC asked some detailed questions about the failures mentioned in this report, SpaceX provided a reply: https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=13332196

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:

Quote
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.

I wonder who are these operators....
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/07/2021 12:31 pm
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)

Quote
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.

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 10/07/2021 01:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/07/2021 01:32 pm
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.

The collision avoidance with impaired satellites stuff is what we'd expect given the constraints, it's nice to confirm what method they're using, but I don't think there's anything particularly novel here.

For the complaint, I don't mean the complaint itself is interesting, what I find interesting is that the complaint implies another NGSO had a satellite anomaly but is not disclosing it, and other operators publicly casting doubt about automated collision avoidance system but privately asking SpaceX to use it to help them, I don't think we've heard of these before.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 10/08/2021 11:52 am
Starlink satellites can be used to change flight path of missiles — Roscosmos chief.

According to Rogozin, Starlink can also be used to deliver "purely political, and, most likely, anti-Russian content" directly to mobile phones.

7 OCT, 18:53

MOSCOW, October 7. /TASS/. /TASS/. Roscosmos Director General Dmitry Rogozin believes that Starlink satellites, launched by Elon Musk’s company SpaceX, can be used for military purposes in the future, including for changing the flight path of cruise missiles and managing spy networks.

"This year, they [SpaceX] received about $900 million [in state subsidies], the entire subsidy for the forthcoming period is $20 billion. So, a question arises: why would the government do that? And the answer is: those spacecraft provide internet connection, they can become a platform for steering cruise missiles, for changing their flight path when they are already in flight. [They can also be used] for sending orders to special forces, to networks of agents," he said.

According to Rogozin, Starlink can also be used to deliver "purely political, and, most likely, anti-Russian content" directly to mobile phones.

Rogozin went on to say that by now, about 1,800 Starlink satellites were delivered to the orbit. The next state of the project envisages the launch of 17,000 spacecraft. Eventually, Starlink’s orbital constellation will comprise about 42,000 satellites.

"We won’t just sit and wait, of course. We have our own project, Sfera. It was presented to the president earlier this year, and we plan to orbit hundreds of our own satellites to protect our sovereignty," Rogozin said.

https://tass.com/science/1347023
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/08/2021 12:54 pm
<snip>
According to Rogozin, Starlink can also be used to deliver "purely political, and, most likely, anti-Russian content" directly to mobile phones.
<snip>


Huh. AIUI Starlink requires a ground terminal not a mobile handset. So Rogozin is building up a Starlink Bogeyman to get budget to set up a large Russian LEO constellation. Which the Russians currently seems to not able to fielded.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cosmicvoid on 10/09/2021 02:09 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 10/09/2021 02:19 am
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?

Thanks for sharing, BTW...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cosmicvoid on 10/09/2021 03:26 am
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?

I'm 12 miles NW of Seattle, out in "the sticks", surrounded by tall trees. The sky view is good to the north and south, but blocked by trees to the east and west. Most of the outages were just a few seconds, occuring perhaps 3 or 4 minutes apart. Depending on what programs were connected to the internet, you might not even notice these short disturbances. Other outages, say, 30 secs to a few minutes, did not happen often; I suspect those might have been obstructions from trees.

To really get a better idea of the disturbances, I'll have to reconnect the Starlink router and monitor the numbers for a while.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2021 04:48 am
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)

Quote
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.

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
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/12/2021 03:45 am
Elon Musk vs. Charlie Ergen: Battle of the Billionaires Over Spectrum (https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-charlie-ergen-battle-of-billionaires-11633714306)

Quote from: WSJ
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.

Nothing new here, just a summary of what is happening. Although Tim Farrar aka TMF Associates is not naysaying for a change.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/13/2021 03:40 am
There was a moderate (G2) geomagnetic storm in the past 24 hours: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/cme-9-october-2021-arrived-early-12-october-utc-day

Looks like Starlink is not affected.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/15/2021 03:37 am
Rwanda submits ITU filing for constellation of 327,320 satellites – 27 orbital shells at 550-640 km (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/rwanda-submits-itu-filing-for-constellation-of-327320-satellites-27-orbital-shells-at-550-640-km/)

Quote from: spaceintelreport.com
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.

I don't think they're serious about launching these, I wonder if this is an attempt to force some kind of international regulation on the # of satellites in orbit, thus worth monitoring with regard to regulatory risks for Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 10/15/2021 02:14 pm
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)

Quote
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.

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
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.
That lady fights with "imperialiZm in space" particularly which I find particularly amusing from somebody with american law degree.
 
But they don't have any real basis or power to protect their turf or impose their POV, because NEPA is not NASA and most importantly they don't want to become "NASA". NEPA made very clear statement on this topic, and until anybody will build a reasonable argument to expand NEPA sphere beyond breathable atmosphere  Starlink is safe.
P.S. Specifically about Massey case. It was about antarctic station improper waste disposal. Since it influences directly human beings such actions by american agents fall indeed into NEPA domain. (for example Sea Launch activities had american EIS FR Doc No: 99-4276).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/28/2021 05:55 am
https://twitter.com/OsoroSatComs/status/1453090221181046791

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JackWhite on 10/28/2021 12:14 pm
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.

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 10/28/2021 05:53 pm
I went ahead and ordered a 21.5 foot (6.5 meter) mast based on the obstructions I was seeing using the Starlink app, but now I'm wondering if I should trust the app, considering that this is not a serviced area yet, and just eyeballing it the app seems to want a really low north facing view.

Oh well, rather have the dish higher than needed than too low.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/28/2021 06:56 pm
Quote
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

First thing that jumps out:  They're using a flat network density, without weighting how the birds bunch up when latitude ≅ inclination.  That'll throw things off quite a bit.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: soltasto on 10/29/2021 09:48 am
SpaceX has updated their https://www.starlink.com/ website (now multiple languages are available) and some new and updated renders were added.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 10/30/2021 04:02 am
FCC defends Starlink approval as Viasat, Dish urge court to block SpaceX license (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/10/dont-let-viasat-and-dish-block-spacex-starlink-approval-fcc-tells-court/)

Quote from: arstechnica
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: markbike528cbx on 10/30/2021 08:20 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 10/30/2021 08:42 pm
  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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Redclaws on 10/30/2021 09:21 pm
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?

Companies with business relationships sue each other all the time.  Whether or not it creates bad will prejudicial to their other business arrangements tends to depend entirely on the details of the suit, lines of business, and personalities involved.  Elon seems unlikely to hold a grudge like that - their money is good regardless.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: markbike528cbx on 10/30/2021 10:37 pm
...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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jketch on 10/31/2021 04:28 am
...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.

Their money will be good, but their loans might not be.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 10/31/2021 04:50 am
  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:

Quote
Starlink is a wholly owned subsidiary of Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: markbike528cbx on 10/31/2021 04:13 pm
  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:

Quote
Starlink is a wholly owned subsidiary of Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
I made the [false ] statement that number of corporate separations between is 0.
Both vsatman and TheRadicalModerate have pointed out that the number of corporate separations is 1 (wholly owned subsidiary).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 11/01/2021 03:18 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Yiosie on 11/01/2021 05:56 pm
SpaceX: Chip shortage is impacting “our ability to fulfill” Starlink orders (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/11/starlink-exits-beta-but-spacex-says-orders-are-delayed-due-to-chip-shortage/) [dated Nov. 1]

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/01/2021 06:13 pm
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"?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 11/01/2021 09:20 pm
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"?

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).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/02/2021 03:22 am
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).

I assume that the satellites are operational in shark fin mode (solar array +r, edge to flight path), so the two ISLs on the short ends do indeed point to the leading and trailing birds in the same plane.

Maybe the ISL on the wide end swings down and can rotate to be either left or right?  If so, I suspect that wear-and-tear issues would indeed dictate that it stays oriented that way, more or less.  There's certainly no way that you have it pivot on a packet-by-packet basis.

In general, the angular change on the left and right is pretty gradual, but the nearest left bird will cross over to the right hand side at max latitude and vice versa.  I don't know if there'd be more travel of the beam mechanism following it across or whether it would pick up a bird crossing from right to left.

Either way, if you have alternating left-pointing and right-pointing birds in along the same plane, the trick is that routing packets is still easy:  if the packet needs to go east and the ISL is covering west, forwarding one hop forward or back gets you to an east-pointing ISL, and the packet will make its way against the grain until it gets where it's going.

I guess the other possibility is that, when the constellation is more mature, all against-the-grain traffic could get forwarded up to the high-altitude constellation, which could be a completely different kind of satellite with zillions of ISLs and now RF to speak of.

I don't know what happens with raising altitude.  It might be easiest just to take the bird out of service during that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/02/2021 04:40 pm
Whoa! Long thread. Thanks to the report to mod alerting about that. Will start a new thread later today.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/02/2021 08:36 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 11/02/2021 11:31 pm
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

That pic shows the polar Gen 1 sat, which appears to have two lasercomm beam director barrels oriented fore/aft along the outside long edge, with the beam director heads on the same outer edge corners. I'm not sure if we have seen a clear shot of the inner edge of the satellite, aside from payload release video? Was it ever confirmed if there were more than 2 lasercomm terminals installed?

The render appears to show Gen 2, with the beam director barrels aligned on the short edge instead, with the twisting heads on opposite corners (and the third beam director on the inner long edge with the head on the edge, so limited to a side hemisphere line of sight).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/02/2021 11:50 pm
Three lasers is sufficient.

Connected like:

   |       |
---o---o---o---o---
       |       |
---o---o---o---o---
   |       |
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 11/03/2021 03:39 am
Three lasers is sufficient.

Connected like:

   |       |
---o---o---o---o---
       |       |
---o---o---o---o---
   |       |


Yup, that's what I was trying to describe.

But if the long-edge laser can only reach targets on the side on which it's mounted, then that means that alternating satellites have to be yawed 180ş from each other, which puts their solar panels pointing in opposite directions as well, and half of the birds won't get enough power.  If the panels can rotate about the z (or r) axis, then everything's cool.  But if they can't rotate, then flipping the birds around won't work.

On the other hand, if the long-edge laser can swing down below the satellite to reach targets on the other side of the bird, then the birds can all have the same orientation, and there's no solar panel problem.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 11/03/2021 08:50 am
You can also use tiled triangles for a tighter grid, depending on whether the lasers can turn far enough to allow it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cosmicvoid on 11/06/2021 04:41 am
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

It's been working pretty well, no complaints. The outages are really not a problem, particularly with the failover to DSL, so I mostly ignore it when I infrequently have to wait 30 seconds to re-load a web page or rejoin a Zoom meeting.

Based on my initial obstruction reports, I have trimmed a couple of trees in the North view. Will see if that makes any noticeable difference. I installed the Ookla speedtest app on my desktop, and the pings have always been <40ms, and the speeds are typically 40-270Mb/s down and 8-40Mb/s up. Without knowing your equipment, location, and sky-view, I can't offer a reason why you might have a "bad connection".

Wondering how a wet/snowy PNW winter will affect things. So, my conclusion so far: I love it. When more satellites are deployed, it can only get better, IMHO.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/09/2021 09:28 pm
"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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 11/10/2021 12:08 am
"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? That article notes SNRs up to 12.5, but it's dubious that SpaceX would submit modulations up to QAM64 to FCC if they couldn't eventually get the needed SNR to run that modulation. I have a very early dish (the hardware build is noted as rev1_pre_production in debug) and the SNR never went above 9, which indicates to me that the hardware has since changed to increase SNR. SNR is no longer available in the app or in debug.

Also, why aren't they using the 2nd polarization? With the usage assumptions in that article (which are generally reasonable), the current ~1600-sat constellation would serve 550k US users with only UT changes to allow QAM64 and the 2nd polarization.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/10/2021 08:47 am
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..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 11/10/2021 10:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/11/2021 09:33 am
Shift4 stock surges after company signs payments deal with SpaceX’s Starlink (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/10/shift4-stock-surges-after-spacex-starlink-payments-deal.html)

Quote from: CNBC
* 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

Note this is just SpaceX using Shift4 to process user payments for Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 11/11/2021 11:13 pm
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.

How about the new dish?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 11/12/2021 10:07 am
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: soltasto on 11/12/2021 12:24 pm
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...

SpaceX also deorbited the functional v0.9 satellites just because they weren't useful for the full constellation. Those Transporter-1 satellites were pretty much test satellites with lasers, so it is not unlikely that they just completed their tests and now they are not useful anymore. Why aren't they useful anymore? While the assertion that the links were damaged by the solar flare is a possibility, that guess comes from a SpaceX competitor that has all interest in putting SpaceX in bad light, so the worst possibility (SpaceX forgetting about radiation) automatically becomes the only possibility to talk about for them.

There are many more possible reasons for SpaceX to deorbit them:
Incompatible HW with the new satellites
Compatible HW but much lower performance compared tot he new ones, would bottleneck the system
Any other issue whatsoever with the ISL HW that could have popped up regardless of the solar flare, ranging from power issues, cooling/heating issue, alignment issues...


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/12/2021 03:25 pm
The dish is 59 cm.

Yes , dish is 59 cm, but antenna size is only 48 cm , see file
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/12/2021 03:35 pm
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..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/12/2021 05:48 pm
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..
Thanks great summary of improvements.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 11/12/2021 06:00 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: snotis on 11/12/2021 06:12 pm
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..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/13/2021 03:46 am
Nov 10th SpaceX presentation to FCC regarding Gen2: https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=13397140

Nothing new about Gen2, but has update for current constellation:
- Currently serving ~140,000 users in 20+ countries (production slowed by shipchip shortage)
- Over 750,000 orders/deposits globally

Previous presentation on August 2nd has "~90,000 users in 12 countries, half a million orders/deposits globally"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/13/2021 07:16 am
Where are those efficiency numbers from?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/14/2021 05:19 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1459495065206853637
Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1459500803245461506
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/17/2021 02:38 am
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1460666670494543875
Quote
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

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ulm_atms on 11/24/2021 12:19 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: AC in NC on 11/24/2021 01:54 am
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.

I don't have any insight at all but why would it be anything more complicated than that they've allocated various allotments to each country to support the desired penetration and cell-loading.  Dishy's were reported to be expensive so they cannot have just produced at will and so it seems obvious that it's allocation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/24/2021 02:14 am
Starlink update email posted on reddit (https://reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/r0pmge/starlink_update_email_i_just_received/):

Quote
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/24/2021 02:42 am
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.

What do you suggest? I'm sure their production is not running as fast as they wanted (it never does), plus the chip shortage is not going to make that any better.

Starlink is not vaporware -- people have dishes and they are working fine. They have not run out of money. Satellites are still being launched. Dishes are being shipped to other countries than yours because SpaceX wants global coverage and is going to get the foot in the door in as many places as it can to get ahead of competition.

Am I disappointed? Sure. In fact, I'm seriously thinking about switching to the competition. Whups, there is none here. So they get to keep my deposit until either they come through or somebody else decides to serve my area with something competitive.

At this point I'd just as soon wait a bit more and get the new dish...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/24/2021 11:01 am
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 11/24/2021 02:57 pm
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 .
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/24/2021 03:24 pm
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 .

I completely agree!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ulm_atms on 11/24/2021 03:43 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/24/2021 05:18 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tomness on 11/24/2021 05:23 pm
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?

Hopefully you have a Electric Co-op running Fiber to house and get that sonner
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/24/2021 05:42 pm
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

I do see your point. But I also see the counterpoint that any communication other than "your dish is shipped" is going to be seen by many (very many) as "just an excuse." It's really a danged if you do, danged if you don't situation.

I know COVID happened that slowed everything down. I know that there is a chip shortage that is affecting a lot more than just Starlink. I know that general manufacturing and shipping is pretty much a disaster right now. I've waited for nearly a year for a new freezer before finally cancelling my order. I'm having trouble getting basic supplies for my own business.

So yeah, they got what they got and they're trying to serve all their obligations -- and I bet those dishes at the Supercharger stations are in existing cells that have already been opened. And they need dishes for countries that they have previously made arrangements with or maybe lose those arrangements.

But I do understand -- I was hoping against hope that I'd get my Dishy this summer. Now next summer seems more likely. But as a businessguy who is also having to disappoint some customers I'm also understanding Starlink's problems.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 11/25/2021 01:39 am
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

It's probably a combination of several issues, but ISTM gateways don't seem to be a problem.

I think beam repointing adds enough overhead that they can't open all the cells at once with the number of satellites they have. There are around 200 cells per satellite antenna right now, so even if the repoint is 10 microseconds activating them all would be at least 10% wasted bandwidth that could be going to customers in denser cells. They just need more sats to open all the cells.

If that is accurate (and this is only my speculation, to be clear) if you're stuck in a closed cell, it doesn't matter when you signed up... you aren't getting a dish until the cell is opened, and there has to be enough demand in a cell to justify opening it and adding the overhead of beam repointing into that cell. So being in a very sparsely populated cell probably would work against you.

That would also explain why dishes are going to areas where the sats have dead time and they can open more cells, and continue filling the ones that are open.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Todd Martin on 11/26/2021 02:24 pm
FWIW, I paid my deposit on February 13th and was told mid to late 2021.  Now with their 2nd email in 9 months, the schedule was delayed to mid 2022.  Waiting 15 months for a product with no way of knowing your place in line, seeing the line is not first come first serve after all but whoever they feel like shipping product to is not acceptable IMHO.  So, I cancelled my subscription.  They would have handled this much better if they thought many customers would leave.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/26/2021 02:59 pm
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/26/2021 03:06 pm
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.

That's not even considering the half UK owned OneWeb, or am I wrong in considering them a competitor?
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..

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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/26/2021 04:20 pm
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.

That's not even considering the half UK owned OneWeb, or am I wrong in considering them a competitor?
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..

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

I already have Viasat (thus my pricing comment), and while not the same type of service as Starlink I would consider staying with them if they lowered their price and upped their bandwidth. And some internet games are playable if you can adapt to the lag -- shooters obviously are not going to work well, but MMO's aren't too bad. VPNs work fine now, although I understand that was a problem for a while, and even video conferencing works as long as you don't have too many attendees, and of course you have to get used to talking over one another sometimes.

OneWeb may not have a residential solution, but I was assuming for the sake of argument that somebody decided to set up a station nearby and sell a community option -- not that that is very likely.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/27/2021 01:14 am
https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1464398344093061120

Quote
.@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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: cosmicvoid on 11/27/2021 06:04 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 11/27/2021 05:13 pm
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.

I didn't even want to get into all the "plans" I've heard from providers to service this area with broadband in the past twenty years. At least about five or six years ago they stopped promising and just laugh and say "never" when I enquire.

So yeah Elon gets to keep my 99 bucks for right now. I've seen the satellites passing overhead in a train and I know I'll get to use them someday, and I have no animosity for either SpaceX or a customer who got their kit before me.

A little envy, but no animosity...

;)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 11/29/2021 08:25 pm
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)

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 11/30/2021 03:11 am
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 Email
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 11/30/2021 03:25 am
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 Email
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Andy Bandy on 11/30/2021 02:49 pm
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 Email
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.

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.

Musk mentioned the dreaded "B" word. Assuming he's not lying or exaggerating for effect, this is a more serious issue than a schedule alignment. Starlink, NASA's lunar landings and Mars colonization all depend on Starship and Super Heavy and getting Raptors to work as envisioned. The problems there led to a dismissal of the guy leading the Raptor program last week. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JayWee on 11/30/2021 03:02 pm
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)?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: rsdavis9 on 11/30/2021 03:11 pm
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.
 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: soltasto on 11/30/2021 03:19 pm
Assuming he's not lying or exaggerating for effect

It's not really an assumption I would bet on...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/30/2021 04:23 pm
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.
"...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.


Elon is frakked and probably over reacting. Once he cools off he'll keep flogging himself and the crew because it works.


I wonder what the specifics are. Eric, are you listening? Will there be another book?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/30/2021 06:50 pm

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?
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 .
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 11/30/2021 06:57 pm
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)?
for OneWEB - nothing. It has another orbit, coverage and business model
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/30/2021 08:12 pm
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)?
for OneWEB - nothing. It has another orbit, coverage and business model
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.
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.

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Scintillant on 11/30/2021 08:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 12/01/2021 12:11 am

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?
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 .

But can they run 500+ Mbps per beam even with multiple beams per antenna? Since they are directionally separate and going down to different cells, this seems to put a very high limit on total downlink bandwidth, even using only a single channel. Not high density, but since each satellite can see thousands of cells the system downlink limit would be extremely high if the users are dispersed.

For example, from the Nov 21 SatMagazine article page 56: "We can proceed from the assumption that all users in the same cell should share approximately 840 Mbit if the beam serves only 1 cell and 240 Mbit if the beam uses beam hopping and serves 3 cells."

However, if instead of hopping, a single antenna divided into either a grid or 3 sparse arrays transmit in 3 directions continuously on the same channel, then the available downlink bandwidth should be 3 x 840 or 2520 Mbps available to 3 different cells, separated by some angle as needed to minimize interference between the 3 beams.

Repeat across 3 downlink antennas and that's 7.5 Gbps down with only one channel and one polarization. And I don't see any reason to stop at 3 beams per antenna. With 4 or 6 beams per antenna that is 10 Gpbs or 15 Gbps per satellite on one channel.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/01/2021 12:14 am
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)?

Telesat is 700kg, so already larger than Starlink V1. Kuiper is probably larger too, but no specific number is available, they're launching two test satellites on a 1-ton class smallsat launcher, so each could be around 500kg.

As for OneWeb, they were already bankrupt.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/01/2021 12:19 am
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.

From Elon's latest tweet, it's clear the edge case scenario is exactly what he's worried about. Black swan event can and do happen, especially in the financial world. Last time is 2008, and Elon nearly lost both SpaceX and Tesla back then, I think he understands the risk better than anyone since he has first hand experience.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/02/2021 12:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 12/02/2021 03:07 pm
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:

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
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.

They have asked for 5 million in US. 1 million is only the number currently approved.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/spacex-now-plans-for-5-million-starlink-customers-in-us-up-from-1-million/

And the terminals do not serve 100s of users, and the vast majority probably never will in the US. SpaceX does not allow resale of the bandwidth, and probably won't for most customers. Wholesale users will probably pay more.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 12/05/2021 09:26 pm
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/)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/05/2021 09:34 pm
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/)

Quote
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.

The key there is that EU not responding fast enough.

The complaint is similar to BO and others. The answer is build and launch some of your own.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/05/2021 10:05 pm
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/)

Quote
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.

So what is he actually proposing they do?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: ulm_atms on 12/05/2021 10:49 pm
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/)

Quote
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.

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.   ::)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 12/05/2021 10:55 pm
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.   ::)

This is an interesting problem for Europe, I think. Elon is focused on only two things, whereas Europe as a whole has a lot of considerations to deal with.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Alvian@IDN on 12/05/2021 11:24 pm
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/)

Quote
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.

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 overstated
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 12/06/2021 01:00 am
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/)

Quote
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.

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.


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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/06/2021 01:43 am
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.

The reason Elon Empire can get to where it is today is entirely dependent on the passionate idealists' innovation and hard work, without these its advantages will erode and it will lose to new companies with passionate idealists, this is no different from the decline of other big firms like Nokia or Yahoo, or how GM is losing to Tesla right now, so I fail to see this is an issue to be worried about.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/06/2021 01:54 am
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/)

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RoadWithoutEnd on 12/06/2021 04:03 am
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.

There's no avoiding that kind of thing in the long-term.  Elon is focusing tremendous amounts of creative energy into small areas, and that energy has to dissipate into the rest of the economy over time.  But that's also a good thing, as we see with the sheer number of companies started or crewed by SpaceX and Tesla alums.

It's exhilarating to be present at one of these moments where everything comes together, and probably sad to then see them fly apart, but it's all the same process.  NASA's derailment after Apollo drove creative energy into Silicon Valley, and then IT's implosion into trivia and petty thieving drove those energies back out toward older, more concrete sci-fi dreams.

Corporate mediocrity isn't something to fear.  If those people could stop anything, nothing would ever happen.  They're just curators of the known; experts in assumption.  Their caution serves a purpose, and they either end up funding innovation by accident, or allowing it to happen by default when they ignore it.

If SpaceX succeeds, then its ultimate reward will be mediocrity, because it will have given birth to innovations that are beyond its own control.  That's evolution, and life in general.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/06/2021 05:11 am
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/)

Quote
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.

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.

Of course, if the EU impose protectionist “landing rights” by prohibiting Starlink licenses in EU countries, the US and other countries will retaliate and do the same.  As a result no megaconstellation will be financially viable, given it only has access to customers in its home country.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 12/06/2021 07:24 am
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/)

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 12/06/2021 04:28 pm
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)

Quote
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 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/06/2021 09:27 pm
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 ...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/06/2021 10:06 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/06/2021 10:28 pm
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 ...

Maybe that's where SpaceX st
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.

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.

Yeah, if there needs to be ownership in a country then start a subsidiary with SpaceX owning as much as they can.  Then depending how you structure costs and such maybe the subsidiary pays SpaceX for launches etc.  So it could probably be structured to be a good deal for SpaceX (but not as good as owning 100%).

It's annoying to hear established players complaining about innovation that kicks them in the outdated business model.

SpaceX is 18 to 0 years ahead of Arianespace and pulling away.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JayWee on 12/06/2021 10:38 pm
...
SpaceX is 18 to 0 years ahead of Arianespace and pulling away.
It's not like Elon didn't warn them couple of years ago with Ariane6 being a dead-end.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 12/06/2021 11:33 pm
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/)

Quote
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.

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.
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 old school space. It's the attitude that makes the difference.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 12/07/2021 01:17 am
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/)

Quote
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.

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.
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 old school space. It's the attitude that makes the difference.

Arianspace's just announced MaiaSpace is allegedly 2026 for a productized Themis, so not that far away...


But getting huffy over Starlink when OneWeb could have been bought at the bankruptcy sale (which launches from CSG at least, even if they are Soyuz) would have made things very EU/ESA. Following up OneWeb v1 with a surge push using MaiaSpace would have had the same vertical integration as SpaceX/Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/07/2021 01:30 am
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/07/2021 07:44 pm
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...)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/09/2021 01:19 am
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...)

Both SES and Telesat got C-band clearing payout from FCC, so I assume they're selling something on this band in the US.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 12/09/2021 02:21 pm
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)

Quote
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 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.
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.
What it means? They think about everything in the terms of "distributing", "shares", "participation", "rights", "privileges" etc. SpaceX activity put them outside of the action circle and makes the whole circus simply redundant. Hence the backslash.
P.S. All existing (and proposed) Arian designs are political constructs and are designed using above-mentioned vocabulary. It is extremely naive to even consider that the next variant will be any better as commercial product.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/09/2021 07:51 pm
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)
more  https://www.satbeams.com/packages
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 12/10/2021 12:18 pm
 Interview CCN with ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher (https://tv.prime-intra.net/tv/cu/2021/12/10/ba771c926421d24c2ba7fc6f9004cf4fe7d099cfcfa2035f62e57854fcbc81d32f0bc16fab8951e26776f7d5da4d9d18aa45f3756a9e51086bf4684fb06e45b0_1639111194000_1.mp4)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/15/2021 04:15 am
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1470318873115246594
Quote
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


https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1470793545867055107
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/15/2021 08:30 pm
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.

The only case where I see  GEO+LEO as useful is a service for large cruise ships (with 6000 passengers and 2000 crews ) For it  2-3-5-10 gigabits will be needed...

At the same time, you can divide the traffic from ship  into those that are sensitive to low latency and those that are indifferent.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/17/2021 04:45 pm
News from Paris (World Satellite Business Week 2021)
_________________
Jonathan Hofeller, SpaceX vice president of Starlink and Commercial Sales, addressed SpaceX’s go-to-market strategy for LEO constellation Starlink, comparing it to how SpaceX tackled the launch market. Hofeller described how civil, military, and commercial launch customers were all key to SpaceX’s success.

“If you just focused on commercial [or NASA or military] launch, we would not have been successful,” Hofeller said. “The three-legged stool is a paradigm that we also apply to Starlink. We have our consumer service, B2B enterprise service, and our government service as well. We’re putting effort in it across all three. It is a lot of work, but we’re focused on doing it right and learning in the process.”

Hofeller gave an update on Starlink’s reach, and said the service has “well over 100,000 subscribers both on the consumer and enterprise side,” and operates in more than 20 countries. More than 230 different nations have placed pre-orders for Starlink service, and the company is working to enter those markets to provide service. The Gen-1 constellation is complete, and SpaceX will begin launching Gen-2 in the next month or so, with inter-satellite links and Polar Orbit to target northern latitudes.

Hofeller also said that Starlink is expanding its enterprise service, and expects to be more public about its enterprise offerings in the future.

“A lot of folks say that we’re focused on direct-to-consumer. Certainly that has been a large portion of our effort to date. But we are also currently on cellphone towers, airplanes, schools, and hospitals — you name it. There’s no lack of need for connectivity. [We] continue to expand upon those enterprise offerings and solidify them,” he said. 
_______________________________
https://www.satellitetoday.com/broadband/2021/12/16/satellite-operators-debate-go-to-market-strategies-for-leo-and-geo-broadband/

But in United Nations  are only 193 country  today....
+Vatican?? Monaco?? Scotland??
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 12/18/2021 02:23 am

But in United Nations  are only 193 country  today....
+Vatican?? Monaco?? Scotland??
As far as I know the only non UN recognized by most countries are Vatican City, Kosovo, Palestine and Taiwan.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/18/2021 03:08 am
But in United Nations  are only 193 country  today....
+Vatican?? Monaco?? Scotland??

https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/countries_of_the_world.htm

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/22/2021 03:30 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1473343227411550214

Quote from: Harald Murphy
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

Quote from: Elon Musk
A lot of improvement still coming just from software updates to satellites & terminals
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 12/22/2021 05:06 am
No proof here, but a possibility VyOS is being used for the network control plane? There aren't that many IP network switching constellations in use, with a well known penchant for recent Linux/CotS...

https://blog.vyos.io/vyos-1.3.0-lts-release (https://blog.vyos.io/vyos-1.3.0-lts-release)

Quote
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: HarmonicGF2 on 12/22/2021 04:36 pm
Some interesting info : current supported density is 100 Starlinks per 300 sqkm.
Slide 6 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UOI7b5flgAjJrPs2HDa64p_ZABckasa_/view
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 12/22/2021 05:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/23/2021 05:05 am
Some interesting info : current supported density is 100 Starlinks per 300 sqkm.
Slide 6 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UOI7b5flgAjJrPs2HDa64p_ZABckasa_/view
Nah, that's what they say is "optimal." I take it to mean that any more than that would require more bandwidth sharing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/23/2021 11:33 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tommyboy on 12/23/2021 05:29 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 12/23/2021 10:14 pm
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.
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.

The typical broadband subscriber uses about 2-3 Mbps on average, even during peak hours. They will want some headroom over that, but I'm a bit surprised it's nearly triple.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/24/2021 04:33 am
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.
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. The SatMagazine article (http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1026762698) assumed Starlink would only assign 2.27 Mbit/s to each subscriber and thus each cell has 297 subscribers, it seems in reality Starlink could be giving each subscriber a lot more bandwidth and consequently each cell has less subscribers. 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/24/2021 02:48 pm

I don't think vsatman is saying the speed is low, I think he's saying the opposite.

exactly!!!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Redclaws on 12/24/2021 02:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: niwax on 12/24/2021 04:00 pm
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.

They literally quote the prices in the linked presentation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/25/2021 02:20 pm
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.

If you are offering a completely new product that is far superior to the competition, then the right move is to offer a high price. There will always be those who will buy it. And as demand becomes saturated and declines at the high price, you can lower the price and have new portion of customers.
In my native language it is called "skim the cream"..

IMO - in the USA, judging by the number of preorders, StarLink could get the same number of users at a price of 800 USD per terminal and 125 USD per month
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 12/25/2021 04:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/26/2021 10:47 am
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.
Unfortunately, it is wrong to think so.
1) 4 antennas, but three of them are for transmitting to UTs and one for receiving from UT.
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.
3) but 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   
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 12/26/2021 05:10 pm
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

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.

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

Certainly. They could do that, and probably do.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/27/2021 04:48 pm
Chinese complaining about their Spacestation nedding to dodge Starlink satellites.


https://gadgets.ndtv.com/science/news/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-satellite-space-station-near-miss-netizens-slam-cnsa-2674032

I think these are decommissioned satellites that are slowing deorbiting.

If that is case China should destroy them with their antisatellite missiles. That should solve the problem!!.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/28/2021 02:12 am
Source of Chinese complaint: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/oosadoc/data/documents/2021/aac.105/aac.1051262_0.html

Starlink-1095 was being deorbited, was burned up on 9/20/2021

Starlink-2305 was being raised to orbit, it is currently in operational orbit.

Should be obvious this is lawfare against the US, let's see if USG values its national interest more than the political supporters of a single party.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JayWee on 12/28/2021 04:44 am
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1475622785154174979

It seems it came 3 km close to the CSS, after the CSS did avoidance maneuver.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 12/28/2021 08:23 pm

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.

1) for Uplink User Terrminal has 62 MHz bandwidth and has very god modcod  64QAM is possible..
2) Yes . but limitation is Link from GW to Satellite  - this  is max 4000 MHz -  2000 MHz in each polarisation
If it is possible to convert on satellite board   left  Ka band in right Ku band  we will have total 16 beams per sat... But not more...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/30/2021 03:51 am
Elon Musk rejects claims his satellites are squeezing out rivals in space (https://www.ft.com/content/18dc896f-e92f-41f7-9259-69cfd8d61011)

Quote from: ft.com
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/31/2021 05:28 am
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.com
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."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Tomness on 12/31/2021 05:41 am
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.com
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."

So in other words. There was no probility. Just trying slow down their progress or block it from their country. You can't block the signal but you can jam it. Press is all over it because it has Musk's name on it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: thirtyone on 12/31/2021 11:13 am
I suspect this is still a general problem of country-to-country coordination for space conjunctions. The US does actually have more space assets than most countries (China included), and I'm sure China didn't want to trust US space radar to protect its own shiny new space station (which of course the US government is not particularly happy about). They don't have nearly as well developed space radar systems either, so they could only take the conservative approach. I'm also fairly certain that SpaceX does not (and probably is expected to not by the US Government) have any direct contact with any Chinese space agencies to coordinate in these encounters.

Not much SpaceX could do (I think they're really doing their best at this point), SF's extensive radar network didn't flag an issue, and China quite likely genuinely wasn't sure if a conjunction was going to happen, so they took it safe. 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/01/2022 04:01 pm
Does dish come with five cat rating?

https://twitter.com/Tippen22/status/1476985855981993984?t=QLvwImR6pcg3SP90KqKx1Q&amp;s=19

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 01/01/2022 07:10 pm
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 ....
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: OTV Booster on 01/01/2022 11:13 pm
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 ....
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.


What are the chances of an orbit staying secret for very long? Even a stealthed sat with an unknown amount of maneuvering capability has limits on what it can do. With known launch rocket capability and the normal amount of military interest in what the other guy is doing, ISTM the major players will have a good idea of what is where within a few weeks or less.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: JayWee on 01/01/2022 11:33 pm
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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/03/2022 09:30 am
Semi-annual report to FCC: https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=14325486

Nothing really interesting jumps out, 3,333 collision avoidance maneuvers, in 10 occasions they were asked to forgo maneuver so that the other satellite can move instead. They deorbited ~110 satellites, Russia ASAT test gets a mention, no word on the Chinese claim.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 01/04/2022 03:58 pm
Musk-backed Starlink to refund pre-orders in India after govt order (https://wtvbam.com/2022/01/04/musk-backed-starlink-to-refund-pre-orders-in-india-after-govt-order/)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Reynold on 01/04/2022 07:30 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 01/04/2022 09:47 pm
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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/05/2022 03:56 am
Interesting paper from the 18th Space Control Squadron about the work they did to support mega-constellations, namely Starlink and OneWeb: Report on 2020 Mega-Constellation Deployments and Impacts to Space Domain Awareness (https://amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2021/SSA-SDA/Hiles.pdf)

Quote from: Abstract
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/08/2022 07:25 am
Space debris expert warns U.S. ‘woefully behind’ in efforts to clean up junk in orbit (https://spacenews.com/space-debris-expert-warns-u-s-woefully-behind-in-efforts-to-clean-up-junk-in-orbit/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
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.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/14/2022 04:23 am
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.com
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.

Starlink will have less than 500K subscribers? We'll see...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 01/14/2022 06:08 am
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.com
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.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/14/2022 06:58 am
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.com
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.

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.

"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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 01/14/2022 12:19 pm
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.com
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.

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.

"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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: abaddon on 01/14/2022 02:02 pm
Quote from: fiercewireless.com
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.

If you strip out the rest of the BS, this is a reasonable statement that I think most people here would agree with.  Other than it's assuming the straw man (and anti-SpaceX/Elon fear-mongering) that Starlink is going to be some sort of Internet monopoly.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/14/2022 02:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/14/2022 04:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/14/2022 04:22 pm
The 140,000 number is from November 2021, I believe. They’re likely approaching 200,000 now.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/14/2022 05:06 pm
The 140,000 number is from November 2021, I believe. They’re likely approaching 200,000 now.

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.
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.

On a separate note here is what the revenue 2022 at the subscriber level and increase rate should be ~$300M and ~$500M in 2023. But 2024 estimate is still a wide range of from $700M to $2,000M. Almost all of it dependent on the terminal build rate not the satellite deployment rate. Unless Starship has significant problems and delays Gen 2 cost of per sat manufacture and launch should end up in just 2 years to be less per sat than the current V1.5 sat. Where sat manufacture cost increases but launch cost / sat significantly decreases. Since launch cost /sat is greter than the manufacture cost / sat then the result for Gen 2 is a lower deployment cost (sat manufacture + launch) will end being less than current.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 01/14/2022 05:20 pm
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.com
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.


I'd very much like to bet against this prediction.   

Home based rural users will continue to grow around the world, greatly exceeding one million user terminals.    For various reasons, not everyone is a good fit for a starlink connection ... to which I say, so what?   Millions of dispersed rural customers represent billions of dollars of revenue per year.   This is currently, and will continue to cannibalize viasat and Hughes customers en mass.

Starlink will have lucrative deals with the Military, airlines and shipping companies .. all of which are excellent customers with wide open skies and the need for high bandwidth, low latency.   This will add on to the home based customers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/14/2022 05:23 pm
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.com
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.

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.

"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.
I was assuming the use of smaller spots already.

I was unaware of a regulatory limit on the aggregate power: I thought it was a limit per-transmitter. Seems a bit silly given the radio flux from the Sun.

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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 01/14/2022 05:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/14/2022 06:07 pm
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.
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/.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/14/2022 06:40 pm
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.
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/.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/14/2022 07:02 pm
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.
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/.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: RedLineTrain on 01/14/2022 07:14 pm
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.

But let's not discount the terminal capacity out of Hawthorne.  From what SpaceX has said, it seems possible that capacity in Hawthorne is or soon will be hundreds of thousands of terminals a year.

I went back and checked the timing of the Austin factory.  It was last touched May 15.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: meekGee on 01/15/2022 12:54 am
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.
I don't think that's strictly true.

I think all the satellite constellations have 2-3 usable satellites in each axis depending on the phasing (so 4-9 in total)

Starlink flies lower, so needs more satellites to achieve the same goal.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/15/2022 07:19 pm
Tim Farrar is at it again...

Why do people still pay attention to that man? He has been proven incorrect so many times that it is beyond pathetic; it has become hilarious in the worst possible manner.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/15/2022 07:21 pm
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.com
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.

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.

Per his usual MO he will simply move the goalposts again. Like he always does when one of his so-called "predictions" is proven to be wrong.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 01/16/2022 05:08 pm
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 you believe this slide from SpaceX's letter to the FSS, you can say that StarLink is unlikely to develop constellation in V band
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/17/2022 03:07 am
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1482742381141282821

Quote
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)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 01/26/2022 02:27 am
Tim Farrar is at it again (He's been a busy beaver lately, I wonder why, could be linked to new broadband funding from the infrastructure bill?), weird that he basically retracted the two reasons against Starlink in his previous op-ed, and went back to "competition from terrestrial broadband" as the reason why this may not work: Op-ed | LEO broadband: Will this time be different? (https://spacenews.com/op-ed-leo-broadband-will-this-time-be-different/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
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.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Reynold on 01/27/2022 03:38 pm
Cross posted from the FCC licensing thread, an article about "ruggedized" high performance terminals aimed, as has been discussed here, at enterprise users.   

https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-seeks-to-deploy-ruggedized-starlink-satellite-dish-for-buildings

Presumably those would be higher margin than household, especially since the plan is to only install them with" qualified" personnel. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 01/29/2022 10:38 pm
Tim Farrar has written an editorial for Space News 🙄

https://spacenews.com/op-ed-leo-broadband-will-this-time-be-different/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/29/2022 10:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 01/29/2022 11:44 pm
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.

The funniest part is that his whole argument boils down to "but ViaSat is losing customers!" and therefore Starlink can't succeed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 01/30/2022 09:02 am
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/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: snotis on 02/01/2022 04:51 am
New rough calculation for new high performance user terminal proposed by SpaceX:

Area x Aperture efficiency x Maximum Transmit Duty Cycle:

GENERAL POPULATION/UNCONTROLLED:
2496 cm2 x 74.2% x 15.5% = 287

OCCUPATIONAL/CONTROLLED:
2496 cm2 x 74.2% x 33% = 611.1

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..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Reynold on 02/01/2022 01:43 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 02/01/2022 03:04 pm
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.

The number of antennas, polarizations and "beams" information is straight from the SpaceX FCC filings, except that "beams" should really read "channels". SpaceX has 2,000 MHz of spectrum for user downlink and splits it into 8x channels of 250 MHz each.

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Aaronb on 02/02/2022 02:55 am
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..)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/02/2022 02:58 am
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'm still on the list and don't have it yet, but if it uses the 10.x.x.x subnet, like I have heard, it is not routable on the public internet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Aaron_Space on 02/02/2022 04:21 am
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 02/02/2022 06:03 am
Starlink Premium service: https://www.starlink.com/premium

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: MechE31 on 02/02/2022 11:51 am
Starlink Premium service: https://www.starlink.com/premium

Quote
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.

For those curious, it's $2500 for the dish + $50 shipping and $500/month for premium. It required a $500 deposit today if you wanted to reserve.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Mandella on 02/02/2022 07:05 pm
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:

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/03/2022 12:33 pm
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.
// 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 beams
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/03/2022 12:39 pm
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 ..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 02/03/2022 01:02 pm
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 ..

There are multiple ground station antennas per sat, too. They could be reusing the Ku spectrum as well, by connecting to multiple ground stations in different directions with enough angular separation to avoid interference.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 02/03/2022 02:44 pm
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:

Quote
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.

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?

I don't think it's any different from Viasat's normal residential service that way. Unless you have the Viasat business service, you wouldn't notice.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 02/04/2022 12:33 pm
US rejects charge that Starlink satellites endangered China’s space station (https://breakingdefense.com/2022/02/us-rejects-charge-that-starlink-satellites-endangered-chinas-space-station/)

Quote from: breakingdefense.com
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.


The US Note verbale to the UN: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/oosadoc/data/documents/2022/aac.105/aac.1051265_0.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 02/04/2022 12:38 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1488916075781799942

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 02/04/2022 03:13 pm
The rate of Antenna production and its increases would be interesting to know, but of course they don't have to share anything.

We'll probably figure it out by how many people are getting it.

The cost per unit would be good to know too and see how much they have brought the cost down. 

I think they need to get into the 100's of thousands per month eventually.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/05/2022 04:53 pm
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..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 02/05/2022 04:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 02/05/2022 05:04 pm
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.

Plus, we know satellites switch cells every 15 seconds. They probably time switching ground stations to coincide with switching cells, so there's no disruption to the connection.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/05/2022 05:10 pm
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
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Twark_Main on 02/06/2022 08:12 am
Design OneWEB & StarLink Gen1  is very  similar, you can say Musk in 2016 copied the first version of StarLink from OneWEB

Let's just say there's a lot of history between SpaceX/Musk and OneWeb/Wyler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellation#History


(also it's stylized "OneWeb" and "Starlink," per their respective websites)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: dondar on 02/06/2022 07:18 pm
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
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.
P.S. there is number of fundamental design differences between Starlink and OneWeb.
P.P.S. You have no slightest idea  what are you talking about: "slowly tuned to" is perfect example of many.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/07/2022 09:43 am
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.
[/quote]
Are you saying that setting up to another gateway takes less than 1 second?? And where can you read about it?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 02/07/2022 03:53 pm
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?
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/07/2022 05:25 pm
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..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SpaceCadet1980 on 02/07/2022 06:12 pm
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..
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.

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.

To answer a related question:
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/07/2022 08:34 pm
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??
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SpaceCadet1980 on 02/07/2022 11:01 pm
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??
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.

The simplest way I can think of to explain an architecture with multiple beams is to consider the receive case. You could put an ADC on every single element of an array. Then with enough time and/or processing power, you can add all of that digital data together with every combination of weights you want and independently distinguish signals from different directions (limited by beamwidth.) In practice there is you don't want/need to go that far and don't have infinite processing power so you would go with a different architecture. Same effect though. Like everything with antennas, transmit case is equivalent to receive, you add up the different signals per element and transmit them. Total power increases in proportion to the number of beams, but since this changes nothing about power density on the ground, it is not something that would explicitly come out in the FCC filings.

You are asking for a single example "since 2016" as if this is new magic people are claiming SpaceX invented. The physics has been around for a long time. Here is the first link I found from google searching for: phased array multiple simultaneous beams.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6731900
"multiple simultaneous beams (at the same reference frequency) covering different pointing directions "
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Redclaws on 02/07/2022 11:28 pm
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?
[/quote]

Sure, why not?  Location and frequency are already known and basic link latency is in the low tens of milliseconds.  There’s very little negotiation to do.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/08/2022 04:53 pm
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 – according to Article 1.115 of the International Telecommunication Union´s (ITU) ITU Radio Regulations (RR) – defined as: A radio link from an earth station at a given location to a space station, or vice versa, conveying information for a space radiocommunication service

Earth Station  in our case is parabolic Antenna +50 W tranceiver+modem  on GateWay ...  Space Station - StarLink satellite with parabolic antenna
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 or
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..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SpaceCadet1980 on 02/08/2022 11:25 pm
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
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.

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 antenna
And Link between  GW and Sats is feeder link.
And 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.

For feeder link SpaceX can use 2000 MHz in Ka band in both polarisation divided in channels  500 MHz or
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 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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Asteroza on 02/09/2022 03:11 am
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...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/09/2022 05:54 am
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/09/2022 04:41 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/09/2022 06:50 pm
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
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.

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 antenna
And Link between  GW and Sats is feeder link.
And 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.

For feeder link SpaceX can use 2000 MHz in Ka band in both polarisation divided in channels  500 MHz or
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 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.

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.
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..
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 02/09/2022 06:57 pm
I would imagine anybody using chemical propulsion wouldn't be having a good day either if they started low as well...

No, it wouldn't bother them
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 02/09/2022 07:03 pm
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.
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.

As stated by them, it is to weed out the no ops.  If the spacecraft responses to commands and works, it is boosted.  Otherwise it quickly deorbits.

With this many spacecraft, there is only checkout at the factory and likely none at the launch site. Much like consumer electronics, check out and ship to launch site.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SpaceCadet1980 on 02/10/2022 12:53 am
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.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.msg2335914#msg2335914

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.

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.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 02/10/2022 02:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/10/2022 04:24 pm
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.)

well, let's analyze it separately
 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..

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.
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.

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.

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.

P.S. I have a question Have you ever worked in Telecom in the field of service quality? or Satellite Networks?
What service availability should StarLink provide in your opinion?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Barley on 02/10/2022 04:56 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SpaceCadet1980 on 02/10/2022 07:00 pm
well, let's analyze it separately
 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.
First 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.

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.

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.
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)
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.

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?
What service availability should StarLink provide in your opinion?
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.

The service availability of Starlink as designed is quite clearly 100% with at least single fault tolerant once enough satellite coverage is available and either enough gateways or ISLs. I am guessing you meant to ask something different though I am not sure what.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/10/2022 08:19 pm
The answer comes from the evaluation of the complete system vs that of a single sat. In the environment where there is >2000 sats there will be several sats that have both locations in their Ku and Ka band footprints. You only need one sat that can talk to both at one time for a 16Gb/s throughput comm link. The Gateway would likely have as many as 4 Ka band steerable antennas and more likely 6 or more. From this type of system level look. The Ku and Ka antenna on the sats may not change their "spots" at all. It only requires for frequency reuse for each antenna spot to not overlap with others of the same band/frequency. An interesting Note here is that this system level design view would also work for One Web with only 600 sats. These are not GEO sats in which the number of sats possible to connect to is less than 4 likely only 1. But a situation where the number is >4 if not >>10. Many more sats to pick from than available Ka band antennas in the Gateways. Hence the use of multiple cheaper Ku band UTs (> than the total number of Ka antennas) to connect to many sats simultaneously to get detailed status, orbit throughput capability of the possible sat to do a connect through.

This is the way to look at it. Macro not Micro.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: daavery on 02/10/2022 08:33 pm
from multiple aerial photos the starlink base stations have 9 domed steerable parabolic dishes in a 3x3 grid
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/11/2022 06:29 am

//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 ..

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/11/2022 10:10 am
from multiple aerial photos the starlink base stations have 9 domed steerable parabolic dishes in a 3x3 grid
Always 9, but sometimes in one or 2 rows
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: launchwatcher on 02/11/2022 12:47 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SpaceCadet1980 on 02/11/2022 05:23 pm

//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?
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.

//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.
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.

Speaking of user beams on the satellite, you are still replying to me while ignoring that the subject of my posts to you was originally about your baseless claims for the number of possible simultaneous user beams. Since you are refusing to reply, should I take this as an implicit admission that you were wrong and have no clue what you are talking about?

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.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: vsatman on 02/11/2022 08:57 pm
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.]
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: SpaceCadet1980 on 02/11/2022 11:53 pm
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.]
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.)

Your second question is poorly defined, more relevant is "What is the angle relative to the center of the Earth from the ground station to a satellite, when the line from the satellite to the ground station is at the ground station's minimum elevation angle from the ground?" This is not something that anyone would know off the top of their head (again unless they work on Starlink on a technical level), and I'd bet many high school students would struggle with the relevant trigonometry. (Inputs to this are Starlink altitude and the ground elevation angle) Again, you made the claim, you do the math.

I already gave my input with an estimate based on systems I have worked with, Starlink is lower altitude, so if it is maybe half of the range I provided that would be reasonable, as I never claimed that number was correct for Starlink, just that your provided number was significantly too low.

And to be clear here, you have already demonstrated that your knowledge is severely lacking on essentially all relevant subjects, from the number of simultaneous beams a phased array can handle (essentially arbitrary) to the fact that packet routing is common and not magic, etc. Never mind the incoherence and/or irrelevance of your second question, I'll just assume that is just the language barrier again. You can't even seem to admit to these mistakes, so you have already demonstrated that there is no point in reading anything you say, I am doing it only to correct the nonsense you are spouting. Please don't pretend that you are actually reading what I have written. You have repeatedly ignored what I and others have written, only to change the topic every time you are proven wrong on something. You asking questions to judge my understanding simply is not relevant at this point, multiple people here have provided evidence pointing out ways you are wrong.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/12/2022 07:58 pm
New thread. Vsat, be civil or lose your posts.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55795.0