Author Topic: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2  (Read 1427101 times)

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5477
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3778
  • Likes Given: 6566
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #460 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 My experience with networking is about 16 years out of date and mostly simple local area stuff.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




We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline allins

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 212
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #461 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?

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1734
  • Liked: 1222
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #462 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

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9275
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4498
  • Likes Given: 1133
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #463 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?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #464 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.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9275
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4498
  • Likes Given: 1133
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #465 on: 09/22/2019 12:11 am »
other cases might require all traffic to go through a gateway in that country.

Shadows of Iridium.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline IainMcClatchie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 411
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #466 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.

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 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.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2019 12:54 pm by IainMcClatchie »

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
  • Liked: 2734
  • Likes Given: 11219
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #467 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.

Online Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Liked: 1188
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #468 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.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5322
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5027
  • Likes Given: 1625
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #469 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.

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 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.

Offline DistantTemple

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2034
  • England
  • Liked: 1714
  • Likes Given: 2888
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #470 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.
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline Rondaz

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27056
  • Liked: 5301
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #471 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

Offline Rondaz

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27056
  • Liked: 5301
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #472 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

Offline vsatman

Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #473 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

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10808
  • US
  • Liked: 15002
  • Likes Given: 6579
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #474 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

Offline jak Kennedy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 808
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #475 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.

... the way that we will ratchet up our species, is to take the best and to spread it around everybody, so that everybody grows up with better things. - Steve Jobs

Offline vsatman

Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #476 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)
« Last Edit: 10/02/2019 08:07 am by vsatman »

Offline Rondaz

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27056
  • Liked: 5301
  • Likes Given: 169

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #478 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

Offline LiamS

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #479 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/

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.

Tags: pole flip 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1