NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX General Section => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 02/12/2022 07:58 pm

Title: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/12/2022 07:58 pm
Thread 1:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36552.0

Thread 2:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.0

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

Needed a new thread after the previous was getting out of hand (likely from competitors trying to spread FUD).

Civility, however, is a must.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/16/2022 02:55 am
https://spacenews.com/china-proposes-formal-lines-of-communication-with-u-s-on-space-safety/

Quote
Getting in touch with Chinese officials has been difficult in the past. “We don’t know exactly who to contact on the Chinese side,” said Bill Gerstenmaier, vice president of build and flight reliability at SpaceX, during a panel at the AIAA ASCEND conference in November. He said SpaceX checks for close approaches of its Starlink satellites with the International Space Station and China’s space station.

While notifications of close approaches with the ISS are straightforward, SpaceX has had to work with the State Department and other U.S. government agencies on getting notifications to China. “We provide information to the State Department, but I don’t know what happens after,” he said.

Quote
A study by COMSPOC found that Starlink satellites account for only about 7% of all close approaches with China’s space station, with the majority coming from debris, including from China’s own anti-satellite weapon test in 2007.

“These findings suggest that Starlink spacecraft do not place undue flight safety burden on the Tiangong Space Station crew or their flight dynamics staff as compared to other active spacecraft that transit Tiangong’s orbit altitude band,” COMSPOC’s Dan Oltrogge and Sal Alfano concluded in their Jan. 3 assessment.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/16/2022 02:57 am
https://twitter.com/seattleix/status/1488917010201206785

Quote
SpaceX - Starlink (AS14593) has added 2x100G bringing their capacity to a total of 2x2x100G. They are connected to the route servers.

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1493534776569044995

Quote
.@SpaceX appears to be migrating #Starlink customers from the @googlecloud network (AS36492) to its own  AS14593. Many new POPs (https://peeringdb.com/asn/14593) incl IXP ports, new IPv4 prefix announcements (public IPv4 instead of CGNAT coming?) & new upstreams (https://bgp.he.net/AS14593#_asinfo)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Alvian@IDN on 02/21/2022 05:06 am
Will this increase the chance of it stays in orbit longer (thus debris)?
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1495627180361064451?t=8UzltwCzvO7nV58pLq8ibg&s=19
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 02/21/2022 08:51 am
Will this increase the chance of it stays in orbit longer (thus debris)?

Yes, but we are talking about weeks, a maximum of a couple of months, and only for those satellites that are recognized as DOA (Dead On Arrival) during the testing process after their launch.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/25/2022 10:09 am
From SpaceX official website: SpaceX’s approach to space sustainability and safety (https://www.spacex.com/updates/#sustainability)

Quote
FEBRUARY 22, 2022

SPACEX'S APPROACH TO SPACE SUSTAINABILITY AND SAFETY

SpaceX was founded to revolutionize space technology towards making life multiplanetary. SpaceX is the world’s leading provider of launch services and is proud to be the first private company to have delivered astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS), and the first and only company to complete an all-civilian crewed mission to orbit. As such, SpaceX is deeply committed to maintaining a safe orbital environment, protecting human spaceflight, and ensuring the environment is kept sustainable for future missions to Earth orbit and beyond.

SpaceX has demonstrated this commitment to space safety through action, investing significant resources to ensure that all our launch vehicles, spacecraft, and satellites meet or exceed space safety regulations and best practices, including:

* Designing and building highly reliable, maneuverable satellites that have demonstrated reliability of greater than 99%

* Operating at low altitudes (below 600 km) to ensure no persistent debris, even in the unlikely event a satellite fails on orbit

* Inserting satellites at an especially low altitude to verify health prior to raising into their on-station/operational orbit

* Transparently sharing orbital information with other satellite owners/operators

* Developed an advanced collision avoidance system to take effective action when encounter risks exceed safe thresholds

With space sustainability in mind, we have pushed the state-of-the-art in key technology areas like flying satellites at challenging low altitudes, the use of sustainable electric propulsion for maneuvering and active de-orbit, and employing inter-satellite optical communications to constantly maintain contact with satellites. SpaceX is striving to be the world’s most open and transparent satellite operator, and we encourage other operators to join us in sharing orbital data and keeping the public and governments updated with detailed information about operations and practices.

SpaceX continues to innovate to accelerate space technologies, and we are currently providing much-needed internet connectivity to people all over the globe, including underserved and remote parts of the world, with our Starlink constellation. Below are our operating principles demonstrating our commitment to space sustainability and safety.


DESIGNING AND BUILDING SAFE, RELIABLE AND DEMISABLE SATELLITES

SpaceX satellites are designed and built for high reliability and redundancy in both supply chain and satellite design to successfully carry out their five-year design life. Rigorous part and system-level screening and testing enable us to reliably build and launch satellites at very high rates. We have the capacity to build up to 45 satellites per week, and we have launched up to 240 satellites in a single month. This is an unprecedented rate of deployment for a complex space system — and reflects SpaceX’s commitment to increase broadband accessibility around the world with Starlink as soon as feasible.

The reliability of the satellite network is currently higher than 99% following the deployment of over 2,000 satellites, where only 1% have failed after orbit raising. We de-orbit satellites that are at risk of becoming non-maneuverable to prevent dead satellites from accumulating in orbit. Although this comes at the cost of losing otherwise healthy satellites, we believe this proactive approach is the right thing for space sustainability and safety.

Our satellites use multiple strategies to prevent debris generation in space: design for demise, controlled deorbit to low altitudes, low orbit insertion, low operating orbit, on-board collision avoidance system, reducing the chance small debris will damage the satellite with a low profile satellite chassis and using Whipple shields to protect the key components, reducing risk of explosion with extensive battery pack protection, and failure modes that do not create secondary debris.

SpaceX satellites are propulsively deorbited within weeks of their end-of-mission-life. We reserve enough propellant to deorbit from our operational altitude, and it takes roughly 4 weeks to deorbit. Once the satellites reach an appropriate altitude, we coordinate with the 18th Space Control Squadron. Once coordinated, we initiate a high drag mode, causing the satellite’s velocity to reduce sufficiently that the satellite deorbits. The satellites deorbit quickly from this altitude, depending on atmospheric density. SpaceX is the only commercial operator to have developed expertise in flying in a controlled way in this low altitude, high drag environment, which is incredibly difficult and required a significant investment in specialized satellite engineering. SpaceX made these investments so that we can maintain controlled flight as long as possible prior to deorbit, providing us with the ability to perform any necessary maneuvers to further reduce collision risk.

When a satellite’s altitude decays, it encounters a constantly increasing atmospheric density. Initially, these molecules impact the satellite, but as the air density increases, a high-pressure shock wave forms in front of the spacecraft. As the satellite slows down and descends into the atmosphere, its orbital energy is transferred into the air, heating it to a plasma. The hot plasma sheath envelops the satellite, causing intense heating. Starlink satellites are designed to demise as they reenter the Earth’s atmosphere, meaning they pose no risk to people or property on the ground. Design for demise required the investment of significant engineering resources and often required adding cost and even mass to our satellites, such as our decision to use aluminum rather than composite overwrap pressure vessels for the fuel tank for our propulsion system. SpaceX has safely deorbited over 200 satellites utilizing this approach. By building reliable, debris minimizing satellites, planning for active deorbit and designing for full demisability, we ensure we’re keeping space sustainable and safe.


EXTREMELY LOW ORBIT INSERTION

In addition to SpaceX designing and building very reliable satellites, we further mitigate risks by deploying the satellites into extremely low orbits relative to industry standards. We deploy our satellites into low altitudes (<350km) and use our state-of-the-art electric propulsion thruster to boost the satellites to the operational altitude of approximately 550 km to start their mission. We leverage SpaceX’s technical advancements to maintain controlled flight at these low altitudes. By deploying the satellites into such low altitudes, in the rare case where any SpaceX satellite does not pass initial system checkouts, it is quickly and actively deorbited using its thruster or passively by atmospheric drag. This approach is not without complexity or other challenges. This was best evidenced by the recent February 3rd Starlink launch, after which increased drag from a geomagnetic storm resulted in the premature deorbit of 38 satellites. Despite such challenges, SpaceX firmly believes that a low insertion altitude is key for ensuring responsible space operations.


OPERATING BELOW 600 KM

SpaceX operates its satellites at an altitude below 600 km because of the reduced natural orbit decay time relative to those above 600 km. Starlink operates in "self-cleaning" orbits, meaning that non-maneuverable satellites and debris will lose altitude and deorbit due to atmospheric drag within 5 to 6 years, and often sooner, see Fig. 1. This greatly reduces the risk of persistent orbital debris, and vastly exceeds the FCC and international standard of 25 years (which we believe is outdated and should be reduced). Natural deorbit from altitudes higher than 600 km poses significantly higher orbital debris risk for many years at all lower orbital altitudes as the satellite or debris deorbits. Several other commercial satellite constellations are designed to operate above 1,000 km, where it requires hundreds of years for spacecraft to naturally deorbit if they fail prior to deorbit or are not deorbited by active debris removal, as in Fig. 1. SpaceX invested considerable effort and expense in developing satellites that would fly at these lower altitudes, including investment in sophisticated attitude and propulsion systems. SpaceX is hopeful active debris removal technology will be developed in the near term, but this technology does not currently exist.

(https://www.spacex.com/static/images/backgrounds-2022/sustainability/figure_1.png)
Fig. 1: Orbital lifetime for a satellite with a mass-to-area ratio of 40kg/m2 at various starting altitudes and average solar cycle.

Fig. 2 shows debris as a function of each altitude. The debris generated from collision events from satellites flying at altitudes above 600km will stay in orbit for decades to come and create orbital debris risk for each altitude they pass through as they deorbit.

(https://www.spacex.com/static/images/backgrounds-2022/sustainability/figure_2.png)
Fig. 2: Debris per 1-km altitude shell as a function of orbital altitude.


TRANSPARENCY AND DATA SHARING

SpaceX transparently and continuously shares the details of our Starlink network both with governments and other satellite owners/operators. We work to ensure accurate, relevant, and up-to-date information related to space safety, and space situational awareness is shared with all operators. SpaceX shares high fidelity future position and velocity prediction data (ephemerides) for all SpaceX satellites.

SpaceX shares both propagated ephemerides and covariance (statistical uncertainty of the predictions) data on Space-Track.org and encourages all other operators to do so, as this enables more meaningful and accurate computation of collision risks. SpaceX is also working to make it even easier for anyone to access our ephemerides by eliminating any requirement to login to Space-Track.org to see our data.

In addition to providing our satellite ephemerides, SpaceX volunteered to provide routine system health reports to the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), something no other operator has ever offered or currently does. These reports indicate the status of our constellation, including a summary of the operational status of our satellite fleet, and the number of maneuvers performed to reduce the collision probability with other objects. Fig. 3 is a sample of the number of maneuvers Starlink has done over the 6-month period from June 2021 through November 2021.

(https://www.spacex.com/static/images/backgrounds-2022/sustainability/figure_3.png)
Fig. 3: Number of SpaceX maneuvers from July-Dec 2021 (total was 3300)


COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEM

SpaceX has high fidelity location and prediction data for our satellites from deployment through end-of-life disposal, and we share this information continuously with the U.S. Space Force, LeoLabs and other operators for tracking and collision avoidance screening. SpaceX satellites regularly downlink accurate orbital information from onboard GPS. We use this orbital information, combined with planned maneuvers, to accurately predict future ephemerides, which are uploaded to Space-Track.org three times per day. LeoLabs downloads our ephemerides from Space-Track.org and along with the U.S. Space Force's 18th Space Control Squadron screens these trajectories against other satellites and debris to predict any potential conjunctions. Such conjunctions are communicated back to SpaceX and other satellite owners/operators as Conjunction Data Messages (CDMs), which include satellite state vectors, position uncertainties, maneuverability status, and the owner/operator information. SpaceX uploads these CDMs to applicable SpaceX satellites.

To accomplish safe space operations in a scalable way, SpaceX has developed and equipped every SpaceX satellite with an onboard, autonomous collision avoidance system that ensures it can maneuver to avoid potential collisions with other objects. If there is a greater than 1/100,000 probability of collision (10x lower than the industry standard of 1/10,000) for a conjunction, satellites will plan avoidance maneuvers. When planning a maneuver for any conjunction, the satellites take care to avoid inadvertently increasing risk for other conjunctions above the same threshold.

By default, Starlink satellites assume maneuver responsibility for all conjunction events. Upon receipt of a high-probability conjunction with another maneuverable satellite, SpaceX coordinates with the other operator. SpaceX operators are on-call 24/7 to coordinate and respond to inquiries from other operators; contact information for high-urgency requests is available to other operators via Space-Track.org. If the other operator prefers to take maneuver responsibility themselves, Starlink satellites can be commanded to not maneuver for an event.

In addition to collision avoidance maneuvers, Starlink satellites can autonomously “duck” for conjunctions, orienting their attitude to have the smallest possible cross-section (like the edge of a sheet of paper) in the direction of the potential conjunction, reducing collision probability by another 4-10x (see Fig. 4).


Fig. 4: SpaceX’s “duck” maneuver (right) minimizing area in potential collision direction (out of page) compared with worst-case orientation (left)

SpaceX’s collision avoidance system has been thoroughly reviewed by NASA’s Conjunction Assessment and Risk Analysis (CARA) program under a Space Act Agreement (SAA) with NASA, and per the SAA, NASA relies on it to avoid collisions with NASA science spacecraft.

SpaceX satellites’ flight paths are designed to avoid inhabited space stations like the International Space Station (ISS) and the Chinese Space Station Tiangong by a wide margin. We work directly with NASA and receive ISS maneuver plans to stay clear of their current and planned trajectory including burns. China does not publish planned maneuvers, but we still make every effort to avoid their station with ISS-equivalent clearance based on publicly available ephemerides.

SpaceX is proud of our sophisticated and constantly improving design, test, and operational approach to improve space sustainability and safety, which are critical towards accelerating space exploration while bringing Internet connectivity to the globe. We urge all satellite owner/operators to make similar investments in sustainability and safety and make their operations transparent. We encourage all owner/operators to generate high quality propagated ephemeris and covariance for screening by the 18th Space Control Squadron and to openly share this information with others to maximize coordination to ensure a sustainable and safe space environment for the future. Ultimately, space sustainability is a technical challenge that can be effectively managed with the appropriate assessment of risk, the exchange of information, and the proper implementation of technology and operational controls. Together we can ensure that space is available for humanity to use and explore for generations to come.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 02/27/2022 01:12 am
Quote
Starlink service is now active in Ukraine. More terminals en route.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1497701484003213317?s=20&t=xg6rJbcEomvu9IC_bRV97w
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Ludus on 02/27/2022 05:59 am
Quote
Starlink service is now active in Ukraine. More terminals en route.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1497701484003213317?s=20&t=xg6rJbcEomvu9IC_bRV97w

This is important in the history of Starlink and world history. Russia cutting off Ukraine from the internet by severing cables at a few points was a real possibility until this action. The strategic significance of keeping Ukraine connected is immense.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 02/28/2022 02:11 am
Quote
Starlink service is now active in Ukraine. More terminals en route.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1497701484003213317?s=20&t=xg6rJbcEomvu9IC_bRV97w

This is important in the history of Starlink and world history. Russia cutting off Ukraine from the internet by severing cables at a few points was a real possibility until this action. The strategic significance of keeping Ukraine connected is immense.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1433123220643717120 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1433123220643717120)

I guess nobody was expecting the fist shaking at the sky that Elon mentioned to be russian...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/28/2022 04:01 pm
Granted, Russia has a demonstrated capability to do more than just shaking a fist at the sky.

It’d be an act of war, of course.

Discussion here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55928.msg2345981#msg2345981
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 02/28/2022 07:25 pm
Starlink reached Ukraine's digital minister.
https://twitter.com/FedorovMykhailo/status/1498392515262746630
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/28/2022 08:47 pm
Wonder if the recent Ukraine Starlink terminals shipment expediters brought along a ground station as well.

That would provide satcom access to all of Ukraine, also provided the Ukrainians with a secure and highly survivable command and control communication network.

Even the basic Starlink user terminals will become Ukrainian National assets for the duration of the conflict. IMO.

Which brings up the issue of Musk and ITAR regulations. Is the Starlink terminals cover by ITAR?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eriblo on 02/28/2022 09:07 pm
Checking the maps based on public info there should at least be gateways in Turkey, Poland and Lithuania that together cover all of Ukraine.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 02/28/2022 09:17 pm
Wonder if the recent Ukraine Starlink terminals shipment expediters brought along a ground station as well.
The point is you DON'T have one in Ukraine, where it can be destroyed/infiltrated.

Quote
Which brings up the issue of Musk and ITAR regulations. Is the Starlink terminals cover by ITAR?
The terminals are already all around the world, so probably not.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/28/2022 09:19 pm
SpaceX Starlink even more of a cyberattack target than it was before. Acid test.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/28/2022 09:34 pm
Wonder if the recent Ukraine Starlink terminals shipment expediters brought along a ground station as well.
The point is you DON'T have one in Ukraine, where it can be destroyed/infiltrated.

A ground station is required for Starlink to function as C3 (command, control & communication) system for the Ukrainian military. IMO.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Reynold on 02/28/2022 09:49 pm
One of the comments after this article, which has a few more details about interactions with Musk and the Ukrainians, is from someone saying they have activated a Starlink terminal in Kyiv. 

https://spacenews.com/spacex-heeds-ukraines-starlink-sos/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Lars-J on 02/28/2022 11:41 pm
[EDIT: This was mentioned a few posts back and I missed it, but leaving the direct link up]

For those wondering if Starlink ground stations have the range to cover Ukraine, well we know at least that there is (or was) a Starlink dish up and running in Kyiv: (this guy tested it recently)

https://twitter.com/olegkutkov/status/1498397991148916736
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: archae86 on 03/01/2022 01:35 pm
Checking the maps based on public info there should at least be gateways in Turkey, Poland and Lithuania that together cover all of Ukraine.
I spent some time watching the representation of available ground stations and resulting coverage as estimated by the third-party site starlink.sx

While coverage appears good in the west of Ukraine and on east of Kiev, it appears completely non-existent in the eastern Donbas regions including Luhansk and Donestk.  I think Dnipro is a rough reference: west of that would be OK, east rapidly petering out.  Unless, of course, SpaceX tinkers with the angle limit imposed on satellite to ground station links.  Or, possibly that web site is misinformed as to those limits, or there is an additional ground station not known to that web site.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 03/01/2022 03:49 pm
Granted, Russia has a demonstrated capability to do more than just shaking a fist at the sky.

It’d be an act of war, of course.

Discussion here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55928.msg2345981#msg2345981 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55928.msg2345981#msg2345981)
Whoa. Russia and SpaceX going to war? We know how that would work out. After he wins, Elon would have access to unlimited natural gas.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/01/2022 04:03 pm
Checking the maps based on public info there should at least be gateways in Turkey, Poland and Lithuania that together cover all of Ukraine.
I spent some time watching the representation of available ground stations and resulting coverage as estimated by the third-party site starlink.sx

While coverage appears good in the west of Ukraine and on east of Kiev, it appears completely non-existent in the eastern Donbas regions including Luhansk and Donestk.  I think Dnipro is a rough reference: west of that would be OK, east rapidly petering out.  Unless, of course, SpaceX tinkers with the angle limit imposed on satellite to ground station links.  Or, possibly that web site is misinformed as to those limits, or there is an additional ground station not known to that web site.
A general item here. Do not forget a significant number of planes have active ISL's working. Although this would not give a 24/7 connection. It would be a significant amount of time every day that a connection is possible. It takes about 2 to 3 months to get a launched Starlink sat to it's operational orbit position. About 2 to 4 orbital planes (~100 sats). With additional planes coming online every month, an additional ~100 to 150 sats.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/01/2022 10:16 pm
Granted, Russia has a demonstrated capability to do more than just shaking a fist at the sky.

It’d be an act of war, of course.

Discussion here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55928.msg2345981#msg2345981 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55928.msg2345981#msg2345981)
Whoa. Russia and SpaceX going to war? We know how that would work out. After he wins, Elon would have access to unlimited natural gas.
Don't mess with someone who can rain 100 tonnes worth of tungsten rods on the Kremlin ;)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/02/2022 02:24 am
Granted, Russia has a demonstrated capability to do more than just shaking a fist at the sky.

It’d be an act of war, of course.

Discussion here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55928.msg2345981#msg2345981 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55928.msg2345981#msg2345981)
Whoa. Russia and SpaceX going to war? We know how that would work out. After he wins, Elon would have access to unlimited natural gas.
Don't mess with someone who can rain 100 tonnes worth of tungsten rods on the Kremlin ;)
100+ tonnes is in the future. But about 40 tonnes of rods is doable now ;)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: rakaydos on 03/02/2022 12:21 pm
Granted, Russia has a demonstrated capability to do more than just shaking a fist at the sky.

It’d be an act of war, of course.

Discussion here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55928.msg2345981#msg2345981 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55928.msg2345981#msg2345981)
Whoa. Russia and SpaceX going to war? We know how that would work out. After he wins, Elon would have access to unlimited natural gas.
Don't mess with someone who can rain 100 tonnes worth of tungsten rods on the Kremlin ;)
The problem with tungsten rods, I'm told, is overpenetration. yes, you can put a telephone sized hole through  a deeply buried bunker. But odds are against anything important being in that telephone poll diameter destruction. There's no blast.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/02/2022 02:08 pm
Granted, Russia has a demonstrated capability to do more than just shaking a fist at the sky.

It’d be an act of war, of course.

Discussion here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55928.msg2345981#msg2345981 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55928.msg2345981#msg2345981)
Whoa. Russia and SpaceX going to war? We know how that would work out. After he wins, Elon would have access to unlimited natural gas.
Don't mess with someone who can rain 100 tonnes worth of tungsten rods on the Kremlin ;)
The problem with tungsten rods, I'm told, is overpenetration. yes, you can put a telephone sized hole through  a deeply buried bunker. But odds are against anything important being in that telephone poll diameter destruction. There's no blast.

Send in a few thousand rods then, that outta do it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/02/2022 02:19 pm
Guys. Back on topic.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tomness on 03/02/2022 03:43 pm
Guys. Back on topic.

Sucks is a bunch of Gen 1 kits were sent to Ukraine and bumping reservation holders from getting a kit. Though from Reddit Starlink Group. They don't seem to worked over by it. Even to some wanting to donate their kits back to SpaceX's to be sent over there. I for one still enjoy my Gen 1 dish. and have family members still on the list. I just tell them they will arguably get a better kit with Gen 2. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 03/02/2022 03:55 pm

Sucks is a bunch of Gen 1 kits were sent to Ukraine and bumping reservation holders from getting a kit. Though from Reddit Starlink Group. They don't seem to worked over by it. Even to some wanting to donate their kits back to SpaceX's to be sent over there. I for one still enjoy my Gen 1 dish. and have family members still on the list. I just tell them they will arguably get a better kit with Gen 2. 
Yeah, a real disaster. That must be at least 1/5 of a day production for the terminals. I hope reservation holders can survive the delay.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tomness on 03/02/2022 04:08 pm

Sucks is a bunch of Gen 1 kits were sent to Ukraine and bumping reservation holders from getting a kit. Though from Reddit Starlink Group. They don't seem to worked over by it. Even to some wanting to donate their kits back to SpaceX's to be sent over there. I for one still enjoy my Gen 1 dish. and have family members still on the list. I just tell them they will arguably get a better kit with Gen 2. 
Yeah, a real disaster. That must be at least 1/5 of a day production for the terminals. I hope reservation holders can survive the delay.

More the delay more Fiber to Home gets finished for some. Which is win-win for everybody.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/02/2022 04:35 pm
As a somewhat cranky longtime reservation holder, I joyfully encourage SpaceX to send my unit to Ukraine.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: sauerkraut on 03/03/2022 02:27 am
As a somewhat cranky longtime reservation holder, I joyfully encourage SpaceX to send my unit to Ukraine.
     

Me Too !!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/03/2022 03:26 am
https://twitter.com/fedorovmykhailo/status/1499091570292834304

Quote
@elonmusk @SpaceX @SpaceXStarlink many thx! Starlink keeps our cities connected and emergency services saving lives!

With Russian attacks on our infra, we need generators to keep Starlinks & life-saving services online - ideas?
@Honda @ChampionGen @westinghouse @DuroMaxPower


https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499194255688019971

Quote
Katya Pavlushchenko: Dmitry @Rogozin to Russia Today: "When Russia implements its highest national interests on the territory of Ukraine, @elonmusk appears with his Starlink which was previously declared as purely civilian. Here is this mud (мурло) opened himself..."



Elon Musk: Ukraine civilian Internet was experiencing strange outages – bad weather perhaps? – so SpaceX is helping fix it
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/03/2022 03:31 am
I’m a big Elon fan.

Not sure if this particular bear bating is worth the risk, however.

Dunno. My risk tolerance is obviously much lower than his🤷‍♂️
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Redclaws on 03/03/2022 03:51 am
I’m a big Elon fan.

Not sure if this particular bear bating is worth the risk, however.

Dunno. My risk tolerance is obviously much lower than his🤷‍♂️

If you’re referring to the Twitter thing, I think that’s immaterial next to the sending of the terminals.

As for sending the terminals…. It’s good PR and I suspect he feels it’s the right thing to do.  I do.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/03/2022 03:58 am
I’m a big Elon fan.

Not sure if this particular bear bating is worth the risk, however.

Dunno. My risk tolerance is obviously much lower than his🤷‍♂️

He was asked to help, it's kind of hard to refuse. And his tweet reply to Rogozin emphasizes this is for civilian use and it's basically a humanitarian aid, I think it's a good reply without too much confrontation and drama.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/03/2022 04:11 am
I’m a big Elon fan.

Not sure if this particular bear bating is worth the risk, however.

Dunno. My risk tolerance is obviously much lower than his🤷‍♂️

He was asked to help, it's kind of hard to refuse. And his tweet reply to Rogozin emphasizes this is for civilian use and it's basically a humanitarian aid, I think it's a good reply without too much confrontation and drama.

Yep, I definitely agree with the aid provided. I’m referring to the Twitter aspect of it. But who knows, maybe that’s indeed insignificant.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/03/2022 05:15 am
I’m a big Elon fan.

Not sure if this particular bear bating is worth the risk, however.

Dunno. My risk tolerance is obviously much lower than his🤷‍♂️

He was asked to help, it's kind of hard to refuse. And his tweet reply to Rogozin emphasizes this is for civilian use and it's basically a humanitarian aid, I think it's a good reply without too much confrontation and drama.

Nonsense, the Starlink terminals establishes a secure command, control and communications network for the Ukrainian government in addition to providing internet access.

Elon was definitely bear baiting. But he likely got the weight of uncle Sam behind him. His delay in replying to vice minister Federov was most likely due to waiting for a wink from the Biden administration, IMO.

Elon's risk tolerance is quite high. One must remember that Tesla and SpaceX faces the spectre of bankruptcy at same time during 2008, Musk rolled the dice with his last remaining cash to keep both of them afloat. His reward is being the current richest civilian of the world.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/03/2022 07:15 am
But these ARE just regular civilian units. The fact that Russia invaded doesn’t mean Ukraine doesn’t get civilian satellite terminals.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 03/03/2022 05:22 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499442132402130951


Quote from: Elon Musk
Updating software to reduce peak power consumption, so Starlink can be powered from car cigarette lighter.

Mobile roaming enabled, so phased array antenna can maintain signal while on moving vehicle.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/04/2022 02:00 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499472139333746691

Quote
Important warning: Starlink is the only non-Russian communications system still working in some parts of Ukraine, so probability of being targeted is high. Please use with caution.



Turn on Starlink only when needed and place antenna away as far away from people as possible



Place light camouflage over antenna to avoid visual detection

Quote
Q: Spray paint work? Very thin layer ?



A: Yes, provided no metal particles in paint
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/05/2022 04:16 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499972826828259328?s=21

This IMHO is more of a partial trolling on Roscosmos, which has just declared themselves and the Russian space program to “shift emphasis to building satellites by themselves for national defense purposes”: https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1499335245635764224?s=21

I definitely can see SpaceX themselves trying to fit more jamming resistance features to Starlink though - in fact I would not be surprised if the US military or even NATO offers a contract for that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 03/05/2022 07:34 am
"Some Starlink terminals near conflict areas were being jammed for several hours at a time. Our latest software update bypasses the jamming.

Am curious to see what’s next!"


And in a reply Elon says…

“In a way, this is free QA haha”

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1500026380704178178
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: drzerg on 03/05/2022 09:24 pm
Do you know what bad weather actually means? Check names for the russian MRL and other missile weapons systems: град, ураган, смерч, солнцепек...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jak Kennedy on 03/05/2022 09:54 pm
snip

Quote
Katya Pavlushchenko: Dmitry @Rogozin to Russia Today: "When Russia implements its highest national interests on the territory of Ukraine, @elonmusk appears with his Starlink which was previously declared as purely civilian. Here is this mud (мурло) opened himself..."



Elon Musk: Ukraine civilian Internet was experiencing strange outages – bad weather perhaps? – so SpaceX is helping fix it

When was Starlnk ever described by Elon as purely civilian? If so I missed it but I have always believed the DoD was interested. It would be crazy not to be used by the military and with eventually many thousands in orbit hard to any of them all down.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Comga on 03/05/2022 09:55 pm
Do you know what bad weather actually means?
Check names for the russian MRL and other missile weapons systems: град, ураган, смерч, солнцепек...
"castle, hurricane, spruce, sunshine ..." :)
"multiple rocket launcher system (MRLS)"
One might complain about drzerg being cryptic, but check out his profile location: Kyiv!
Good luck, drzeng!  Best wishes for you and your family.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mongo62 on 03/05/2022 11:02 pm
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1500246977086373891
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: schaban on 03/06/2022 12:31 am
Do you know what bad weather actually means?
Check names for the russian MRL and other missile weapons systems: град, ураган, смерч, солнцепек...
"castle, hurricane, spruce, sunshine ..." :)
"multiple rocket launcher system (MRLS)"
One might complain about drzerg being cryptic, but check out his profile location: Kyiv!
Good luck, drzeng!  Best wishes for you and your family.
Correct translation are Hail, hurricane, tornado/twister, heatwave
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 03/06/2022 12:49 am
 I wonder how you prevent jamming with software. Enable frequency hopping? Disable automatic disconnect for noisy signals? More power for better SNR? Lower minimum elevation to enable more available satellites? Lower data rate?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/06/2022 01:20 am
I wonder how you prevent jamming with software. Enable frequency hopping? Disable automatic disconnect for noisy signals? More power for better SNR? Lower minimum elevation to enable more available satellites? Lower data rate?
I wrote a long answer, but then decided not to post it. I urge you to think about this.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 03/06/2022 01:41 am
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1500264314875359238?s=20&t=9Xk3C4FWA24Xtp_usW7A2g

Quote
Zelensky: Additional Starlink satellite tech to arrive in Ukraine next week.

Zelensky announced that he spoke with Elon Musk, who will provide more Starlink satellite systems for Ukraine’s war-torn cities.

They also discussed possible space projects for after the war.

I love that Zelensky is thinking about Ukraine's space industry after the war.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 03/06/2022 02:02 am
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1500260601595056130?s=20&t=BA5_7FHykHi0glv2qgtxOA
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: 1 on 03/06/2022 03:09 am
I wonder how you prevent jamming with software. Enable frequency hopping? Disable automatic disconnect for noisy signals? More power for better SNR? Lower minimum elevation to enable more available satellites? Lower data rate?
I wrote a long answer, but then decided not to post it. I urge you to think about this.

Perhaps a PM might be appropriate? I won't fault anyone for an abundance of caution, but unless any particular poster has actual experience with electronic warfare, I very much doubt any sugestion here would not have already been thought about, analyzed, and already either improved upon or discarded. That said, Nomadd's questions appear to stem from one particular assumption which is perfectly safe to address.

It is public knowledge that dishy uses a phased array antenna. When most folks hear that phrase, they think of beam steering; but that's only one result of the greater effort of beam-forming. By sending more power in one direction, you send less power in other directions.

However, there is a principle in antenna design known as the reciprocity theorm. It essentially says that an antenna that transmits more strongly in a particular direction must also recieve more sensitively in that same direction. Thus, if dishy detects a hostile signal from a particular direction, the beam can be reformed such that the array has poor reception in that direction. This will likely come as a net loss to main lobe directivity, but could result in an overall improvement to SNR. This would be implemented at the software/algorithm side of things.

Just a basic example based on known information.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: waveney on 03/06/2022 06:25 am
I wonder how you prevent jamming with software. Enable frequency hopping? Disable automatic disconnect for noisy signals? More power for better SNR? Lower minimum elevation to enable more available satellites? Lower data rate?

At least any of these:

* Wide spread spectrum transmissions - difficult to jam every frequency

* Heavy duty error correction - Can recover from signal levels lower than noise!

* By keeping the signal bandwidth down and trading that for a large used operational bandwidth its amazing what can be achieved.  Even getting messages through the what appears to be white noise.   (Once worked a way to send a low speed message upstream on a shared downstream fibre - just by carefully induced patterns of errors in the medium)


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 03/06/2022 02:15 pm
Maybe implement the fix in the jammers software? ;D
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 03/06/2022 02:49 pm
I wonder how you prevent jamming with software. Enable frequency hopping? Disable automatic disconnect for noisy signals? More power for better SNR? Lower minimum elevation to enable more available satellites? Lower data rate?

At least any of these:

* Wide spread spectrum transmissions - difficult to jam every frequency

* Heavy duty error correction - Can recover from signal levels lower than noise!

* By keeping the signal bandwidth down and trading that for a large used operational bandwidth its amazing what can be achieved.  Even getting messages through the what appears to be white noise.   (Once worked a way to send a low speed message upstream on a shared downstream fibre - just by carefully induced patterns of errors in the medium)

Don't forget about directionality, unless the jamming signal is coming from the same place as the satellite the dish can distinguish between the two.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: dondar on 03/06/2022 07:43 pm
I wonder how you prevent jamming with software. Enable frequency hopping? Disable automatic disconnect for noisy signals? More power for better SNR? Lower minimum elevation to enable more available satellites? Lower data rate?
they use high bandwidth multi-point to multi-point communication links. Plenty of possibilities. Beside already mentioned approaches they have choice of encoders/modulators. they are programmable nowadays and by choosing specific variants you can win SNR/directionality of the signal by losing some bandwidth. Just polarization encoding already does wonders against white noise jamming. And you can build a proper mix with frequency hopping/spreading if you have good mathematicians.

Because it is all software you  end with automatic software  functions  which just trying and probing different variants until you get a handshake.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 03/06/2022 09:35 pm
I wonder how you prevent jamming with software. Enable frequency hopping? Disable automatic disconnect for noisy signals? More power for better SNR? Lower minimum elevation to enable more available satellites? Lower data rate?

Musk mentioned reducing dishy power consumption for mobile/generator use, to get it down to cigarette lighter levels, so dishy will potentially have reduced transmit power as a result (which won't help).

One could make the argument that in wartime, the usual transmit power limits imposed by various organizations may be subject to loose interpretation...

On the sat end of things, you're ultimately limited by solar panel (and battery) power budget, not just for transmit antenna but for receive processing as well. Picking out and ignoring jammers is going to be crucial, but gets harder with mobile jammers. Now if someone was supplying location data for jammers, that might make it easier...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/08/2022 02:31 am
Looks like the mobile roaming feature is enabled for everyone, including those in North America: Starlink Mobile Roaming (https://www.tuckstruck.net/truck-and-kit/geekery/starlink-mobile-roaming/)

Quote from: tuckstruck.net
Elon Tweeted “Mobile roaming enabled, so phased array antenna can maintain signal while on moving vehicle”. Hmmm… interesting! I guess that in context, he probably meant for this to apply to his recent supply of Starlink terminals to the brave souls defending Ukraine. But it got me thinking… if it can work in Ukraine, could it work for a couple of British overlanders touring around North America too? We’re lucky to have roaming enabled on our system, so could I stick our Dish on our RV roof and get Starlink mobile roaming… internet ‘in motion’?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 03/08/2022 12:14 pm
Some interesting data I hadn't seen before: (https://www.tuckstruck.net/truck-and-kit/geekery/modifying-the-starlink-power-supply-to-run-on-ac-and-dc/)

Apparently power on the original dish is now down to about 50W (or 40W when powered directly from DC). The new rectangular dish is supposed to be even lower.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 03/08/2022 04:17 pm
Some interesting data I hadn't seen before: (https://www.tuckstruck.net/truck-and-kit/geekery/modifying-the-starlink-power-supply-to-run-on-ac-and-dc/)

Apparently power on the original dish is now down to about 50W (or 40W when powered directly from DC). The new rectangular dish is supposed to be even lower.
I've seen a new one using around 54W on AC while streaming video. Not sure about standby or low usage.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: sauerkraut on 03/08/2022 04:21 pm
I'm not interested in use while in motion .  But it sounds like dishy can be used when stopped while traveling .
I'm retired and on the waiting list . I hope this feature remains on after I receive one !!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jpo234 on 03/08/2022 08:51 pm
U.S. general: Starlink in Ukraine showing what megaconstellations can do (https://spacenews.com/u-s-general-starlink-in-ukraine-showing-us-what-megaconstellations-can-do/)

Quote
“What we’re seeing with Elon Musk and the Starlink capabilities is really showing us what a megaconstellation or a proliferated architecture can provide in terms of redundancy and capability,” Gen. James Dickinson, commander of U.S. Space Command, said during a hearing the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotical on 03/08/2022 09:53 pm
U.S. general: Starlink in Ukraine showing what megaconstellations can do (https://spacenews.com/u-s-general-starlink-in-ukraine-showing-us-what-megaconstellations-can-do/)

Quote
“What we’re seeing with Elon Musk and the Starlink capabilities is really showing us what a megaconstellation or a proliferated architecture can provide in terms of redundancy and capability,” Gen. James Dickinson, commander of U.S. Space Command, said during a hearing the Senate Armed Services Committee.

And Starship just became a national security priority. With how things are falling for SpaceX (not to mention Tesla), I'm starting to wonder if Musk somehow arranged the current conflict, lol.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/09/2022 07:25 am
Just out of curiosity, is the current Starlink terminal capable of randomly switching in timing to a different Starlink satcom in view?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tomness on 03/09/2022 11:56 am
Just out of curiosity, is the current Starlink terminal capable of randomly switching in timing to a different Starlink satcom in view?
They had an update months ago that automatically switches to your best sat. Does a sat switch over in phases.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Ludus on 03/09/2022 02:47 pm
U.S. general: Starlink in Ukraine showing what megaconstellations can do (https://spacenews.com/u-s-general-starlink-in-ukraine-showing-us-what-megaconstellations-can-do/)

Quote
“What we’re seeing with Elon Musk and the Starlink capabilities is really showing us what a megaconstellation or a proliferated architecture can provide in terms of redundancy and capability,” Gen. James Dickinson, commander of U.S. Space Command, said during a hearing the Senate Armed Services Committee.

And Starship just became a national security priority. With how things are falling for SpaceX (not to mention Tesla), I'm starting to wonder if Musk somehow arranged the current conflict, lol.

No more Ukrainian engines for Antares. No more Russian Engines for ULA Atlas. No more One Web launches by Russia. Starlink global showcase as a critical com tech battle tested by full on Russian efforts to hack, jam or detect it. Starship seen as a critical national security asset. Ultra high gas prices display value of Teslas. Teslas still operate in Ukraine when ICE vehicles have no fuel. SpaceX critical to ISS. Yep, a pretty long list.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: spacenut on 03/09/2022 02:51 pm
I too am waiting for a mobile Starlink satellite dish and equipment.  I too am retired and want to travel, but have access to my retirement accounts and keep up with what is going on.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/09/2022 03:07 pm
Just out of curiosity, is the current Starlink terminal capable of randomly switching in timing to a different Starlink satcom in view?
They had an update months ago that automatically switches to your best sat. Does a sat switch over in phases.
Each satellite produces several beams that cover an area more or less below the satellite. Unless you are in a satellite's beam you cannot communicate with the satellite because it is not looking at you. In general only one or sometimes two satellites are looking at any given spot on the Earth's surface, so you cannot switch to some other satellite just because it's in the line of sight.

All of the users currently in a beam share the beam using some multiple-access protocol built on some combination of TDMA and FDMA elements. This sharing requires the Starlink system to allocate a portion of the beam to each user. This is generally done by  broadcasting the time/frequency plan from the satellite to all terminals. Each terminal then knows when to transmit. I am not familiar with the details of all this for Starlink, so I'm describing the principles used for other satellite communications, but they are fairly fundamental because of the nature of shared RF communications, including e.g. cell phones and cell towers. There are huge differences at the detail level to optimize bandwidth efficiency based on each specific system architecture.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 03/09/2022 04:36 pm
U.S. general: Starlink in Ukraine showing what megaconstellations can do (https://spacenews.com/u-s-general-starlink-in-ukraine-showing-us-what-megaconstellations-can-do/)

Quote
“What we’re seeing with Elon Musk and the Starlink capabilities is really showing us what a megaconstellation or a proliferated architecture can provide in terms of redundancy and capability,” Gen. James Dickinson, commander of U.S. Space Command, said during a hearing the Senate Armed Services Committee.

And Starship just became a national security priority. With how things are falling for SpaceX (not to mention Tesla), I'm starting to wonder if Musk somehow arranged the current conflict, lol.

Nonsense.  F9 and Vulcan have it covered 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: dondar on 03/09/2022 05:13 pm
Just out of curiosity, is the current Starlink terminal capable of randomly switching in timing to a different Starlink satcom in view?
They had an update months ago that automatically switches to your best sat. Does a sat switch over in phases.
Each satellite produces several beams that cover an area more or less below the satellite. Unless you are in a satellite's beam you cannot communicate with the satellite because it is not looking at you. In general only one or sometimes two satellites are looking at any given spot on the Earth's surface, so you cannot switch to some other satellite just because it's in the line of sight.

All of the users currently in a beam share the beam using some multiple-access protocol built on some combination of TDMA and FDMA elements. This sharing requires the Starlink system to allocate a portion of the beam to each user. This is generally done by  broadcasting the time/frequency plan from the satellite to all terminals. Each terminal then knows when to transmit. I am not familiar with the details of all this for Starlink, so I'm describing the principles used for other satellite communications, but they are fairly fundamental because of the nature of shared RF communications, including e.g. cell phones and cell towers. There are huge differences at the detail level to optimize bandwidth efficiency based on each specific system architecture.
the frequency/bandwidth allocation (they are far from the same things) can be done asynchronously or semi-asynchronously. The algorithms exist.
It's funny how the old (and never officially finalized) multirate MC DS-CDMA toolkit is becoming more and more important.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/09/2022 05:15 pm
With 2000 operational sats and 50 sats per plane. That is 40 planes full of sats. Since you can see a plane in ascending and descending it effectively doubles the density of the number of planes in view. Such that a Gateway or UT can see right now up to 9 sats and connect to them. The reason why the Gateways were setup to communicate to as many as 9 sats at once. The minimum numbers would be about 5 or 6 sats. The farther away from the gateway you are the less sats that are connected to a specific gateway that a UT can connect to.

In specific with Ukraine at a mean latitude of 49 degrees. That means that there is a lot more than just 5 planes in view but around 10 planes or more in view and as many as 18 or more sats are in view for connection.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 03/09/2022 06:26 pm
With 2000 operational sats and 50 sats per plane. That is 40 planes full of sats. Since you can see a plane in ascending and descending it effectively doubles the density of the number of planes in view. Such that a Gateway or UT can see right now up to 9 sats and connect to them. The reason why the Gateways were setup to communicate to as many as 9 sats at once. The minimum numbers would be about 5 or 6 sats. The farther away from the gateway you are the less sats that are connected to a specific gateway that a UT can connect to.

In specific with Ukraine at a mean latitude of 49 degrees. That means that there is a lot more than just 5 planes in view but around 10 planes or more in view and as many as 18 or more sats are in view for connection.
I thought there were only 22 sats per plane and 72 planes for each of the two low inclination shells.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/10/2022 02:37 am
U.S. general: Starlink in Ukraine showing what megaconstellations can do (https://spacenews.com/u-s-general-starlink-in-ukraine-showing-us-what-megaconstellations-can-do/)

Quote
“What we’re seeing with Elon Musk and the Starlink capabilities is really showing us what a megaconstellation or a proliferated architecture can provide in terms of redundancy and capability,” Gen. James Dickinson, commander of U.S. Space Command, said during a hearing the Senate Armed Services Committee.

And Starship just became a national security priority. With how things are falling for SpaceX (not to mention Tesla), I'm starting to wonder if Musk somehow arranged the current conflict, lol.

Nonsense.  F9 and Vulcan have it covered

Not with Gen2 they can't, remember this is Starlink thread. As Musk's leaked email indicated, the future of Starlink is intricately linked with Starship, they're one and the same.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: sauerkraut on 03/13/2022 02:10 am
I'm not interested in use while in motion .  But it sounds like dishy can be used when stopped while traveling .
I'm retired and on the waiting list . I hope this feature remains on after I receive one !!
Not standard capability. A lot of people have lost connectivity when they moved the dish a few miles with a message telling them it's in the wrong place.
I know there was talk about being able to use the dish in multiple places .. Elon said it would be enabled this winter ..
I know that sometimes estimates are optimistic .. My dish has been put off until mid 2022 .. Hoping the multiple
location feature will be enabled by then !!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/13/2022 09:23 am
For your amusement. A not so favorable interview about Starlink and Musk.

I believed this is the same Tim Farrar that is mention elsewhere on this forum bad mouthing Starlink and Musk.

The man still hasn't realize that no one have launch capacity along with satellite development  and manufacturing capacity in house like SpaceX.

One of the comment from the video is that Tim Farrar on Starlink sounds a lot like former GM executive Bob Lutz on Tesla. Lutz keep on saying the competition is coming to drive Tesla out of business for years. Even with 2 Tesla Gigafactory coming online soon, Tesla can not produce enough cars to meet demand.

https://youtu.be/3xHz0BFh3UM

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 03/13/2022 02:10 pm
For your amusement. A not so favorable interview about Starlink and Musk.

I believed this is the same Tim Farrar that is mention elsewhere on this forum bad mouthing Starlink and Musk.

The man still hasn't realize that no one have launch capacity along with satellite development  and manufacturing capacity in house like SpaceX.

One of the comment from the video is that Tim Farrar on Starlink sounds a lot like former GM executive Bob Lutz on Tesla. Lutz keep on saying the competition is coming to drive Tesla out of business for years. Even with 2 Tesla Gigafactory coming online soon, Tesla can not produce enough cars to meet demand.

https://youtu.be/3xHz0BFh3UM

 Yeah...Unless you have 15 minutes to waste, I wouldn't advise trying to get anything out of that drivel. He says exactly nothing in all that time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nilof on 03/13/2022 06:18 pm
General idea I just had. I looked at the wikipedia article for the SDI "brilliant pebbles" program. The idea was to have a large number of cheap satellites in orbit, that could change their orbit to intersect an ICBM if one was launched.

The estimated number of sacrificial satellite to stop a mass soviet nuclear strike against the US was 7000, but possibly up to ten times that if you wanted global coverage. Starlink is very close to this ballpark. Could Starlink itself, or a system based on it, be given a dual use as an ABM system?

Between Starship and the capability of mass producing cheap spacecraft for Starlink, it looks to me like SpaceX basically could have the capability to launch an ABM system capable of eliminating the Russian land-based ICBM threat in fairly short order, though the SLBM threat vector is a lot harder to deal with.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ulm_atms on 03/13/2022 06:34 pm
General idea I just had. I looked at the wikipedia article for the SDI "brilliant pebbles" program. The idea was to have a large number of cheap satellites in orbit, that could change their orbit to intersect an ICBM if one was launched.

The estimated number of sacrificial satellite to stop a mass soviet nuclear strike against the US was 7000, but possibly up to ten times that if you wanted global coverage. Starlink is very close to this ballpark. Could Starlink itself, or a system based on it, be given a dual use as an ABM system?

Between Starship and the capability of mass producing cheap spacecraft for Starlink, it looks to me like SpaceX basically could have the capability to launch an ABM system capable of eliminating the Russian land-based ICBM threat in fairly short order, though the SLBM threat vector is a lot harder to deal with.
Please for the love of all good things let NOT get into weapon system discussions again.  Every thread gets locked eventually (or mass post delete).

And to answer your question, once at most.  After that there would be so much debris that we would indeed have Kessler Syndrome happening and loose the ability to do a lot of good in that space that is now useless.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/13/2022 06:53 pm
Note: I worked the SDI program as the Deputy Test Director. Both of you have a passel of very bad assumptions. If you would like a critique send me a message.

This split from this this thread I consider now closed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Clavin on 03/16/2022 05:29 am
Is there a relation between the Operation start date in the FCC filing and the actual launch date? probably no but for the launches which spacex has direct control over the launch dates i.e starlink and transporter launches, there is some sort of a loose protocol i believe. To examine this i just gathered info from the NASA Spaceflight forums on the FCC filings and for the launch dates (initial planned launch dates confirmed by sources and not considering delayed launch date ) i used Space Launch now app.
As highlighted in the image a lot of the launches are scheduled for 10-13 days after the Operation Start date in the FCC filings. I am no expert in this matter, just curious about this and was wondering whether it can be used to predict future starlink launches to some extent or narrow down the time frame.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jpo234 on 03/16/2022 08:01 pm
Starlink Hits 100+ Mbps Download Speed in 15 Countries During Q4 2021 (https://www.ookla.com/articles/starlink-hughesnet-viasat-performance-q4-2021)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/16/2022 08:28 pm
Starlink is killing it with performance. 

I wonder how much traffic is being handled by the laser interlinks and how many customers they are adding per week/month.

It's starting to get exciting.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/18/2022 03:49 pm
I can’t read this article because it’s behind a paywall, but supposedly Ukraine’s military has been really making use of Starlink terminals: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/specialist-drone-unit-picks-off-invading-forces-as-they-sleep-zlx3dj7bb
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 03/18/2022 05:31 pm
Quote
Critical infrastructure facilities in Odesa gain access to Starlink

The equipment providing access to the Starlink satellite Internet has been installed at a number of critical infrastructure facilities in Odesa, Ukraine's southern Black Sea port city.
Ukrinform cites the press service of the Odesa City Council.

“Odesa has received kits to ensure access to the Starlink satellite Internet. A number of important critical infrastructure facilities in Odesa have installed bases to access Starlink satellite Internet,” the statement reads.

The City Hall has expressed gratitude to Elon Musk, founder, CEO, and Chief Engineer at SpaceX, as well as Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Digital Transformation of Ukraine Mykhailo Fedorov, for providing Odesa’s key agencies with a stable communications source.

As reported, the first Starlink satellite terminals were installed in Odesa on March 12 to back up conventional Internet connections in case of problems. One of the first batches of SpaceX equipment set to provide access to the Starlink satellite network was mounted at the Odesa Humanitarian Centre on Rishelievska Street.

It should be noted that the bases are set up in areas where connectivity was and could be unavailable due to hostilities. Their addresses of the installation are not disclosed.
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-society/3433528-critical-infrastructure-facilities-in-odesa-gain-access-to-starlink.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 03/18/2022 06:38 pm
I can’t read this article because it’s behind a paywall, but supposedly Ukraine’s military has been really making use of Starlink terminals: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/specialist-drone-unit-picks-off-invading-forces-as-they-sleep-zlx3dj7bb
Yes it is. Typically, the military in Ukraine used radio communications and Surfbeam2 satellite terminals via the KaSat satellite. But  radio communications can be jammed by the enemy, and the satellite network on KaSat was disabled by a cyber attack on the morning of February 24 (now this network with tens of thousands of terminals throughout Europe has not yet been fully restored).
Advantage of StarLink  that it can be carried with you and used in a forest field outside places where there is a cellular connection and it is practically impossible to jamm it, because Starlink changes the satellite every 15 seconds, that is, the direction of transmission.
 In Russian-speaking social networks, there is a mention of the use of StarLink by ground units of the Ukrainian army.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: novo2044 on 03/18/2022 06:43 pm
I can’t read this article because it’s behind a paywall, but supposedly Ukraine’s military has been really making use of Starlink terminals: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/specialist-drone-unit-picks-off-invading-forces-as-they-sleep-zlx3dj7bb
Without copy pasting the whole thing, the Ukraine has apparently incorporated what was a drone enthusiast group into their military, using cheap commercial lightweight recon drones and much heavier, custom, thermal/night vision octorotor units to actually deploy 5kg antitank weapons at very close range even in areas like villages where collateral damage would usually be an issue, taking advantage of the Russian tendency to sleep at night.  They can apparently relay precise info to the military, in particular artillery units, using Starlink in the field.  It seems to imply the biggest drones are using Starlink directly though it's not entirely clear.

Fascinating stuff.  Pretty much any motor vehicle can carry batteries and a dish to allow any unit the field to have high speed long range communications.  Combined with drones it allows for incredible, cheap, relatively low risk recon.  Who cares if a commercial drone gets shot down, or if a dish gets lost now and then?  They must also be getting a lot of real world data on jamming, equipment durability, etc.  Apparently jamming a frequency switching phased array is much tougher than might have been expected.

The real question: when will grunts ditch the base plate and instead have to lug around a dish and batteries?  I'm not sure which is heavier these days.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Lars-J on 03/19/2022 04:56 am
I doubt the drones are using Starlink directly, that seems like a mis-translation. The dishes are not that small and disposable (yet).

The main use appears to be as a mobile communication system between separate military units.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 03/19/2022 11:38 pm
The Washington Post had an interview with Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine's head of digital transformation.  He gives the outlines of Starlink's assistance, which is more substantial than I imagined.

Quote
Ukraine has already received thousands of antennas from Musk’s companies and European allies, which has proved “very effective,” Fedorov said in an interview with The Washington Post Friday.

“The quality of the link is excellent,” Fedorov said through a translator, using a Starlink connection from an undisclosed location. “We are using thousands, in the area of thousands, of terminals with new shipments arriving every other day.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/19/elon-musk-ukraine-starlink/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/20/2022 01:37 am
They renamed "Starlink Premium" to "Starlink Business": https://www.starlink.com/business
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 03/20/2022 02:44 am
They renamed "Starlink Premium" to "Starlink Business": https://www.starlink.com/business

Good call.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 03/21/2022 05:25 am
I doubt the drones are using Starlink directly, that seems like a mis-translation. The dishes are not that small and disposable (yet).

The main use appears to be as a mobile communication system between separate military units.

Also note that the area is still a fairly permissive RF environment. For reasons unknown, the russians have not brought their full EW warfare capabilities to bear (particularly certain EW trucks), and there is still in theory the option of bulk jamming all Starlink frequencies with a very strong transmitter, drowning out all the terminals (though this is a step of last resort as you would be trying to gray out half a hemisphere pumping that much power out).

You can be sure the chinese will be studying these circumstances very closely, comparing the utility of pinpoint jamming or EW against terminals (particularly from the air), and bulk jamming (which must be weighed against active use of their own megaconstellation such as Guowang, and the utility that brings to them)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/21/2022 09:40 am
<snip>
Also note that the area is still a fairly permissive RF environment. For reasons unknown, the russians have not brought their full EW warfare capabilities to bear (particularly certain EW trucks), and there is still in theory the option of bulk jamming all Starlink frequencies with a very strong transmitter, drowning out all the terminals (though this is a step of last resort as you would be trying to gray out half a hemisphere pumping that much power out).
<snip>
Practically the Russians don't appear to be able to support said EW trucks with their sub par logistics system inside Ukraine. It takes fuel and maintenance support to run those EW units in the field. Both are in short and dwindling supply for the Russians, since the Ukrainians are targeting them.

Plus the survivability of those EW trucks against Ukrainian counter measures (anti-radiation missiles, drone strikes and artillery barrages) is questionable. Especially since the jamming itself broadcast the location of the emitters.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/21/2022 02:53 pm
In order to effectively jam Starlink requires a whole sky jammer. Such a jamer because of just how much ERP it would have to generate over such an semi half spherical omidirect radiation field would go through ~ 2t of fuel per day. It would be a 75kw to 100kw transmitter. It would be a supper simple target for anti-radiation munitions. A directed jammer which would work against a GEO sat would not work against multiple moving Starlink targets all over the sky.

Starlink terminals uses a very narrow beam width of around 5 degrees. And as mentioned it moves and even jumps to totally new orientations. Starlink Terminal ERP is likely to be from 4W to 20W in that very limited moving 5 degree spot. anything outside of that direction may not be able to pickup the signal at all since it would look a lot like just more background noise with its err code correction and wide band digital data that has small percentage of repetition. Although a Starlink UT could be effective targeted it makes for a very stealthy target.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 03/21/2022 05:05 pm
In order to effectively jam Starlink requires a whole sky jammer. Such a jamer because of just how much ERP it would have to generate over such an semi half spherical omidirect radiation field would go through ~ 2t of fuel per day. It would be a 75kw to 100kw transmitter.
What'd be the approximate jamming range of such jammer?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/21/2022 05:10 pm
In order to effectively jam Starlink requires a whole sky jammer. Such a jamer because of just how much ERP it would have to generate over such an semi half spherical omidirect radiation field would go through ~ 2t of fuel per day. It would be a 75kw to 100kw transmitter. It would be a supper simple target for anti-radiation munitions. A directed jammer which would work against a GEO sat would not work against multiple moving Starlink targets all over the sky.

Starlink terminals uses a very narrow beam width of around 5 degrees. And as mentioned it moves and even jumps to totally new orientations. Starlink Terminal ERP is likely to be from 4W to 20W in that very limited moving 5 degree spot. anything outside of that direction may not be able to pickup the signal at all since it would look a lot like just more background noise with its err code correction and wide band digital data that has small percentage of repetition. Although a Starlink UT could be effective targeted it makes for a very stealthy target.
I don't think this is correct. To jam an uplink, you must be in the beam, broadcasting across the spectrum the beam is using. A jammer that is not in the beam footprint will not be seen by the beam's antenna on the satellite. Any given point on the ground in is a small number of footprints, one or two from each of from one to about three satellites, and the footprints sweep across the ground quickly. Thus, you need a fairly large number of jammers, each of which must track up to about three satellites at once and jam in each of two frequency ranges toward each satellite. I do not know the shape and size of a Starlink beam footprint, so I don't know far into Ukraine a jammer must go to affect terminals further to the west. In any event, because the power it directed specifically to the satellites, the jammer needs a whole lot less power.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 03/21/2022 05:32 pm
 With the kind of barrage jamming need to cover any good sized area, a small network of triangulators could pinpoint the source and feed the coordinates to interested parties in no time. No hi falutin HARMs or other over priced gear needed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/21/2022 06:17 pm
With the kind of barrage jamming need to cover any good sized area, a small network of triangulators could pinpoint the source and feed the coordinates to interested parties in no time. No hi falutin HARMs or other over priced gear needed.
The jamming is directed upward and is narrowly focused on moving satellites. Ground-based triangulation (and HARMs) would be difficult. However, as the beams sweep across the jammer, the satellites get a precise line on which the jammer must lie every minute or so, and the lines change orientation, so unless the jammer moves a whole lot the satellite operator can narrow it down quickly without using any sophisticated equipment on the ground. The software guys at Starlink probably did this already, and they may have done it a long time ago to pinpoint accidental non-hostile interference.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/21/2022 06:20 pm
With the kind of barrage jamming need to cover any good sized area, a small network of triangulators could pinpoint the source and feed the coordinates to interested parties in no time. No hi falutin HARMs or other over priced gear needed.

Don't think there is a need for ground based triangulators. The Starlink Constellation itself can sweep for emitter sources with instant location of the emitter. Since the Starlink beam footprint is small enough the line of sight from the emitter to the comsat is more than accurate enough to initiate extreme remedial action. Even more amusing is that a Starlink comsat could scan for and located a jamming emitter then pass that ground co-ordinate to the remedial forces almost instantaneously. Said remedial force in the future could be an airborne drone with a Starlink terminal commanded through the Starlink network. :o

 :) This means Starlink Constellation is truly the Skynet from the Terminator franchise, no matter the denials from Musk :)

Darn, @DanClemmensen ninja me.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 03/21/2022 07:32 pm
With the kind of barrage jamming need to cover any good sized area, a small network of triangulators could pinpoint the source and feed the coordinates to interested parties in no time. No hi falutin HARMs or other over priced gear needed.

Don't think there is a need for ground based triangulators. The Starlink Constellation itself can sweep for emitter sources with instant location of the emitter. Since the Starlink beam footprint is small enough the line of sight from the emitter to the comsat is more than accurate enough to initiate extreme remedial action. Even more amusing is that a Starlink comsat could scan for and located a jamming emitter then pass that ground co-ordinate to the remedial forces almost instantaneously. Said remedial force in the future could be an airborne drone with a Starlink terminal commanded through the Starlink network. :o

 :) This means Starlink Constellation is truly the Skynet from the Terminator franchise, no matter the denials from Musk :)

Darn, @DanClemmensen ninja me.

That would be the U.S. getting directly involved in the war. Not a small decision.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/21/2022 08:31 pm
With the kind of barrage jamming need to cover any good sized area, a small network of triangulators could pinpoint the source and feed the coordinates to interested parties in no time. No hi falutin HARMs or other over priced gear needed.

Don't think there is a need for ground based triangulators. The Starlink Constellation itself can sweep for emitter sources with instant location of the emitter. Since the Starlink beam footprint is small enough the line of sight from the emitter to the comsat is more than accurate enough to initiate extreme remedial action. Even more amusing is that a Starlink comsat could scan for and located a jamming emitter then pass that ground co-ordinate to the remedial forces almost instantaneously. Said remedial force in the future could be an airborne drone with a Starlink terminal commanded through the Starlink network. :o

 :) This means Starlink Constellation is truly the Skynet from the Terminator franchise, no matter the denials from Musk :)

Darn, @DanClemmensen ninja me.

That would be the U.S. getting directly involved in the war. Not a small decision.
It is only a small step up from providing the Ukrainians with a secure and resilient national command network with Starlink service and user terminals. Which must has tacit approval from the Biden administration, IMO. Since anyone with knowledge in comsat communications will figure out that the Ukrainians will use the Starlink service for command and control of their military.

It is not that much different than the military intelligence provided by the Western Alliance for what is happening inside the borders of Ukraine.

Starlink have to take preventive actions against what has happen to Viasat's KA-Sat network. If that mean removing interference, so be it. Otherwise it was pointless to activate Starlink service in Ukraine in the first place.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 03/21/2022 08:39 pm
With the kind of barrage jamming need to cover any good sized area, a small network of triangulators could pinpoint the source and feed the coordinates to interested parties in no time. No hi falutin HARMs or other over priced gear needed.

Don't think there is a need for ground based triangulators. The Starlink Constellation itself can sweep for emitter sources with instant location of the emitter. Since the Starlink beam footprint is small enough the line of sight from the emitter to the comsat is more than accurate enough to initiate extreme remedial action. Even more amusing is that a Starlink comsat could scan for and located a jamming emitter then pass that ground co-ordinate to the remedial forces almost instantaneously. Said remedial force in the future could be an airborne drone with a Starlink terminal commanded through the Starlink network. :o

 :) This means Starlink Constellation is truly the Skynet from the Terminator franchise, no matter the denials from Musk :)

Darn, @DanClemmensen ninja me.

That would be the U.S. getting directly involved in the war. Not a small decision.
No, no, no, no, no. StarLink is operating in Ukraine. If it's receiving unlicensed RF interference it is entirely reasonable to lodge a complaint with the local licensing authority and more than reasonable to extend full cooperation in locating the source of the interference.

The fact that RF compliance is enforced with 122mm Katyusha rockets is a local matter and above Elon's pay grade.  ;D


Edit: I missed the mark on the Katyusha's. If Ukraine can integrate a StarLink into a drone fast enough to make it worthwhile Elon should lodge a firm objection every time it happens and when this sorry mess is over hire their obviously talented engineers and build a StarLink factory there.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ulm_atms on 03/21/2022 08:52 pm
With the kind of barrage jamming need to cover any good sized area, a small network of triangulators could pinpoint the source and feed the coordinates to interested parties in no time. No hi falutin HARMs or other over priced gear needed.

Don't think there is a need for ground based triangulators. The Starlink Constellation itself can sweep for emitter sources with instant location of the emitter. Since the Starlink beam footprint is small enough the line of sight from the emitter to the comsat is more than accurate enough to initiate extreme remedial action. Even more amusing is that a Starlink comsat could scan for and located a jamming emitter then pass that ground co-ordinate to the remedial forces almost instantaneously. Said remedial force in the future could be an airborne drone with a Starlink terminal commanded through the Starlink network. :o

 :) This means Starlink Constellation is truly the Skynet from the Terminator franchise, no matter the denials from Musk :)

Darn, @DanClemmensen ninja me.

That would be the U.S. getting directly involved in the war. Not a small decision.
Honest question.  What's the difference between that and providing a C&C ability for the Ukraine military which they(SpaceX) is currently doing?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Bob Niland on 03/21/2022 09:52 pm

Edit: I missed the mark on the Katyusha's. If Ukraine can integrate a StarLink into a drone fast enough to make it worthwhile Elon should lodge a firm objection every time it happens and when this sorry mess is over hire their obviously talented engineers and build a StarLink factory there.
Even if the mobile-enabled SL dishes don't have some limits that would inherently forestall direct weaponizing of them, the first hint of such use could easily trigger crafting a firmware download to effect it. I suspect that's already one of various contingencies already planned for (another being capture of dishes by .ru, for which a "maximum brick" update may already be on the shelf).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 03/23/2022 02:12 am

Edit: I missed the mark on the Katyusha's. If Ukraine can integrate a StarLink into a drone fast enough to make it worthwhile Elon should lodge a firm objection every time it happens and when this sorry mess is over hire their obviously talented engineers and build a StarLink factory there.
Even if the mobile-enabled SL dishes don't have some limits that would inherently forestall direct weaponizing of them, the first hint of such use could easily trigger crafting a firmware download to effect it. I suspect that's already one of various contingencies already planned for (another being capture of dishes by .ru, for which a "maximum brick" update may already be on the shelf).
Or, max brick is already installed and just waiting for a go. Better yet, it has to be explicitly given a periodic no go or it becomes another brick in the wall. They'll know if it's been hijacked.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/23/2022 03:30 am
Starlink reaches 250,000 subscribers as it targets aviation and other markets (https://spacenews.com/starlink-reaches-250000-subscribers-as-it-targets-aviation-and-other-markets/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
“We currently have 250,000 subscribers, and that’s across consumer, enterprise and many businesses,” he said. SpaceX is manufacturing “close to eight satellites a day” at its Redmond, Washington, facility as the company builds out its constellation.

Beyond consumer broadband, he cited demand for Starlink from other markets, such as cellular backhaul and services for schools. “There’s just a number of different people coming out of the woodwork that need connectivity,” he said.

<snip>

SpaceX has developed an aviation antenna currently being tested, he said, and is working to get it certified on “various aircraft.” He didn’t give an anticipated schedule for completing that, but said the company planned to offer a service for commercial airliners that would be indistinguishable from conventional internet access. “We’re designing a service where every single passenger on that plane can stream simultaneously.”


https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1505902947552669698

Quote
In a smallsat constellation panel, SpaceX’s Jonathan Hofeller says the company is building “close to 8” Starlink satellites a day at its Redmond, Wash., facility. Vertical integration has cut the cost of its user terminal by 2/3rds from the original version. #SATShow
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/23/2022 03:44 am
Starlink price increase: $110/month, $599 for equipment.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/23/2022 04:18 am
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1506345670726275083

Quote
Shotwell: SpaceX started Starlink with a beta service "because, honestly, we didn't know what we were doing and we weren't even sure that the network was going to work."



Shotwell adds that she has 3 Starlink terminals at her ranch in Texas, and that it's both faster and cheaper than the previous service she had.

"There were many very unhappy customers of broadband in the United States and so we're learning how to make them happy."



Shotwell: One of the more fascinating parts of the Starlink business is setting up service in a new country. SpaceX has "been quite pleased" with the adoption of "Starlink in countries that we thought would take a really long time."



Shotwell: SpaceX is "not working with the government on Starlink, other than to try to sell them the commercial service we have available to them."

"The way we are working with government on Starlink is trying to get them comfortable buying in a more commercial way."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/23/2022 12:39 pm
Quote from: SpaceNews
....
SpaceX has developed an aviation antenna currently being tested, he said, and is working to get it certified on “various aircraft.”
....
The US SOCOM eagerly awaits their first Starlink connected MQ-20 aircraft to enter service.  ;D
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: capoman on 03/23/2022 01:02 pm
Starlink price increase: $110/month, $599 for equipment.

Not very happy about this. I've been on the waiting list from Day 1, and was willing to wait, but in Canada the price of $129/m was a bit higher than I was willing to pay (I have what amounts to 10mb service for $79), but wanted to support SpaceX and it's vision, but now with it going up to $140/m (+13% tax where I live), is getting a bit much for the extra speed, and I'm now considering cancelling my deposit. Starlink, in order to be successful also has to be affordable for the rural market it's going for. People like myself that have marginal rural internet will think twice before paying that much for service. I will be retiring soon, and it's just too much to take on.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/23/2022 01:16 pm
Starlink price increase: $110/month, $599 for equipment.

Not very happy about this. I've been on the waiting list from Day 1, and was willing to wait, but in Canada the price of $129/m was a bit higher than I was willing to pay (I have what amounts to 10mb service for $79), but wanted to support SpaceX and it's vision, but now with it going up to $140/m (+13% tax where I live), is getting a bit much for the extra speed, and I'm now considering cancelling my deposit. Starlink, in order to be successful also has to be affordable for the rural market it's going for. People like myself that have marginal rural internet will think twice before paying that much for service. I will be retiring soon, and it's just too much to take on.
A 10% price increase over 2 years matches exactly the inflation rate over the last 2 years, especially if incorporating the chip availability issues.

Still sucks, but it’s understandable. And the demand for the product is very, very high. Adjusting price allows them to afford to scale up faster.

Greater competition will help the price by taking some of the pressure off of the demand backlog.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tomness on 03/23/2022 01:21 pm
Starlink price increase: $110/month, $599 for equipment.

Not very happy about this. I've been on the waiting list from Day 1, and was willing to wait, but in Canada the price of $129/m was a bit higher than I was willing to pay (I have what amounts to 10mb service for $79), but wanted to support SpaceX and it's vision, but now with it going up to $140/m (+13% tax where I live), is getting a bit much for the extra speed, and I'm now considering cancelling my deposit. Starlink, in order to be successful also has to be affordable for the rural market it's going for. People like myself that have marginal rural internet will think twice before paying that much for service. I will be retiring soon, and it's just too much to take on.
A 10% price increase over 2 years matches exactly the inflation rate over the last 2 years, especially if incorporating the chip availability issues.

Still sucks, but it’s understandable. And the demand for the product is very, very high. Adjusting price allows them to afford to scale up faster.

Greater competition will help the price by taking some of the pressure off of the demand backlog.

Better than HughesNet I had, don't mind the price increase for inflation. Just don't make it like Cable every 2 years goes up $50 when you get off contract.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/23/2022 01:24 pm
I understand people hate price increases, but for the level of performance in rural areas it's priceless.

I was surprised when they said last week that they are up to 250,000 subscribers now.  It will be interesting to see how quickly that number ramps.

More subscribers and that first shell with laser interlinks is going to be very interesting.  The global footprint will be real.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/23/2022 01:33 pm
Yeah, I think once Starship comes into the scene (and the other reusable launchers) and Kuiper and others, the combination of improved supply and competition should help lower the cost.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: aero on 03/23/2022 03:14 pm
Does 250,000 subscribers make $25 M cash flow?

edit - that is, monthly. I guess annual cash flow would be more impressive. More like $300 M.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 03/23/2022 03:21 pm
Does 250,000 subscribers make $25 M cash flow?

edit - that is, monthly. I guess annual cash flow would be more impressive. More like $300 M.

Now 330 million, after the increase.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 03/23/2022 03:43 pm
Does 250,000 subscribers make $25 M cash flow?

edit - that is, monthly. I guess annual cash flow would be more impressive. More like $300 M.

Now 330 million, after the increase.

Plus $130 million for the terminals. Note also that the 250000 subscriber number was mentioned quite some time ago, possibly even late last year. This recent presentation hadn't been updated to more current numbers. It is quite possible that Starlink becomes a billion dollar business over the next year, either through subscriber growth or more serious business/government deals.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/23/2022 03:47 pm
Does 250,000 subscribers make $25 M cash flow?

edit - that is, monthly. I guess annual cash flow would be more impressive. More like $300 M.

Now 330 million, after the increase.

Plus $130 million for the terminals. Not also that the 250000 subscriber number was mentioned quite some time ago, possibly even late last year. This recent presentation hadn't been updated to more current numbers. It is quite possible that Starlink becomes a billion dollar business over the next year, either through subscriber growth or more serious business/government deals.


I think you mean $1B by revenue.  I think that is very likely.

There is enough excited behind anything Elon does and Starlink is up and working, that if it was IPO'd today I think it would be huge, $100B, maybe more.  However, if they can ramp deployment numbers and start deploying Starlinks with Starship, this could be much much bigger than $100B.  Maybe a half trillion or a trillion given how people throw money around these days.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: capoman on 03/23/2022 05:23 pm
I understand people hate price increases, but for the level of performance in rural areas it's priceless.

I was surprised when they said last week that they are up to 250,000 subscribers now.  It will be interesting to see how quickly that number ramps.

More subscribers and that first shell with laser interlinks is going to be very interesting.  The global footprint will be real.

Thing is, even 10Mb/s allows me to WFH and stream at 1080P. The increase in performance really won't get used a lot. I would love to see a second tier at maybe 50Mb/s at $99CAD. I would go for that. Since terminals are sold at a loss right now, and demand is higher than availability, I don't see them offering lower tiers any time soon. Not unlike Tesla's situation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/23/2022 07:15 pm
Right. And you don’t need 10 times as much capacity to go from 10Mbps to 100Mbps, more like 2 times the capacity. The “capacity factor” or proportional “utilization rate” goes way down as peak bandwidth per user goes up.

Comcast alone had $116B in revenue last year. It might be 20 years before Starlink gets to that level (after incorporating TV, etc), but there is a heck of a lot of money in this consumer market and just about as much in the business/enterprise/government side.

It’s not crazy that SpaceX+Starlink could have a trillion dollar market cap in 10-20 years (in fact, if I didn’t think we were in for a mild recession or whatever, I’d say 5 years).

$1-2 billion in annualized Starlink revenue (which they’ll likely get to by the end of this year) is about equal to their revenue from other portions of their business. I expect in a year or two, Starlink alone will exceed their other revenue sources combined.

SpaceX, as of October, had a $100B market cap.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 03/23/2022 08:29 pm
  If they get the initial network up in two more years, I wonder if they'd early retire the first shell sats next to get rid of the non ISL sats.

 Have they abandoned the 7,000 sat V-Band idea?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: capoman on 03/24/2022 04:25 pm
  If they get the initial network up in two more years, I wonder if they'd early retire the first shell next to get rid of the non ISL sats.

 Have they abandoned the 7,000 sat V-Band idea?

Yeah, I would guess they would replace the non-ISL sats at first opportunity. It would reduce the need to keep creating more local ground stations, which are also quite expensive.  It would also allow for more pricing competition on ground station access, as they can use more remote stations. I think the newer generation satellites have higher bandwidth capability as well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/24/2022 04:35 pm
  If they get the initial network up in two more years, I wonder if they'd early retire the first shell next to get rid of the non ISL sats.

 Have they abandoned the 7,000 sat V-Band idea?

Yeah, I would guess they would replace the non-ISL sats at first opportunity. It would reduce the need to keep creating more local ground stations, which are also quite expensive.  It would also allow for more pricing competition on ground station access, as they can use more remote stations. I think the newer generation satellites have higher bandwidth capability as well.

I think they'd use them until they were replaced.  If Starship is making LEO deliveries in 2 years it may not take long to replace them.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/24/2022 05:18 pm
  If they get the initial network up in two more years, I wonder if they'd early retire the first shell next to get rid of the non ISL sats.

 Have they abandoned the 7,000 sat V-Band idea?

Yeah, I would guess they would replace the non-ISL sats at first opportunity. It would reduce the need to keep creating more local ground stations, which are also quite expensive.  It would also allow for more pricing competition on ground station access, as they can use more remote stations. I think the newer generation satellites have higher bandwidth capability as well.
Will Starlink have cross-plane ISL, or just in-plane ISL? Cross-plane is harder but has some dramatic advantages: a true mesh forwarding network in the sky. Speed-of-light in vacuum is 300,000 Km/sec versus speed in fiber of 200,000 Km/sec, and ISL is straight line, not follow-the-fiber-path. This means the Starlink latency will be smaller than fiber latency in almost all cases if cross-plane ISL is implemented.  For applications that are extremely sensitive to latency, it may make sense to use Starlink even when the endpoints have very good land-line connections.

In-plane ISL is a lot simpler because the satellites don't move much with respect to each other and repointing to another satellite is very rare. Cross-plane ISL will generally require more frequent repointing and more sophisticated forwarding table updates. Also, for in-plane you only need a total of two links. (All of this is for lasers or point-to-point RF).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: capoman on 03/24/2022 06:30 pm
  If they get the initial network up in two more years, I wonder if they'd early retire the first shell next to get rid of the non ISL sats.

 Have they abandoned the 7,000 sat V-Band idea?

Yeah, I would guess they would replace the non-ISL sats at first opportunity. It would reduce the need to keep creating more local ground stations, which are also quite expensive.  It would also allow for more pricing competition on ground station access, as they can use more remote stations. I think the newer generation satellites have higher bandwidth capability as well.
Will Starlink have cross-plane ISL, or just in-plane ISL? Cross-plane is harder but has some dramatic advantages: a true mesh forwarding network in the sky. Speed-of-light in vacuum is 300,000 Km/sec versus speed in fiber of 200,000 Km/sec, and ISL is straight line, not follow-the-fiber-path. This means the Starlink latency will be smaller than fiber latency in almost all cases if cross-plane ISL is implemented.  For applications that are extremely sensitive to latency, it may make sense to use Starlink even when the endpoints have very good land-line connections.

In-plane ISL is a lot simpler because the satellites don't move much with respect to each other and repointing to another satellite is very rare. Cross-plane ISL will generally require more frequent repointing and more sophisticated forwarding table updates. Also, for in-plane you only need a total of two links. (All of this is for lasers or point-to-point RF).

Hard to say, but a pure guess might be that v2 satellites might have this capability, but 1.5 does not. Pure speculation though, but Elon wanting to get v2 up there ASAP might point to this capability as possibly being one of the reasons. It would be a huge improvement in capability and flexibility.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 03/24/2022 08:09 pm
  If they get the initial network up in two more years, I wonder if they'd early retire the first shell next to get rid of the non ISL sats.

 Have they abandoned the 7,000 sat V-Band idea?

Maybe so.  According to its November 19, 2018 grant, SpaceX must deploy 50% of their fleet within 6 years.  They may ask for an extension.

SpaceX has argued that V-band-only terminals are not yet viable and therefore their Ku-band operations should not be encroached upon by Dish's proposed terrestrial system in those frequencies.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/24/2022 08:54 pm
How much is “50%”? 7500?

Also, regardless of what frequency they’d use, are SpaceX still planning much lower altitudes, ie VLEO at 340km?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: abaddon on 03/24/2022 09:15 pm
Also, regardless of what frequency they’d use, are SpaceX still planning much lower altitudes, ie VLEO at 340km?
I wonder what a solar storm like the one that took down most of that Starlink batch recently might do to a VLEO constellation at 340km.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 03/24/2022 09:30 pm
How much is “50%”? 7500?

Also, regardless of what frequency they’d use, are SpaceX still planning much lower altitudes, ie VLEO at 340km?

The system consists of 7,518 at satellites at 335 km to 346 km.

Quote
On March 1, 2017, SpaceX filed an application for a proposed NGSO fixed satellite service (FSS) satellite system in the V-band. The proposed SpaceX system consists of the addition of V-band frequencies to the 4,425 NGSO satellites previously authorized to allow the use of both Ku- and V-band spectrum for user links, and both Ka- and V-band spectrum for gateway links and tracking, telemetry, and command functions. SpaceX also proposes to add a very-low-Earth orbit
(VLEO) NGSO constellation, consisting of 7,518 satellites operating at altitudes from 335 km to 346 km, using V-band spectrum for all links to and from associated earth stations. The V-band frequencies proposed are: 37.5-42.0 GHz (space-to-Earth), and 47.2-50.2 GHz, and 50.4-51.4 GHz (Earth-to-space).

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-grants-spacex-ngso-v-band-authorization
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/24/2022 09:58 pm
Those are separate questions.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 03/24/2022 11:29 pm
Those are separate questions.

SpaceX's Gen2 amended application does have VLEO slots, but don't know if it can overlap successfully with approved V-band system (if I am understanding your implication correctly).

Gen2 in VLEO
5,280 @ 340km
5,280 @ 345km
5,280 @ 350km
3,600 @ 360km

V-Band in VLEO
2,493 @ 335.9km
2,478 @ 340.8km
2,547 @ 345.6km
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/26/2022 02:16 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507505633259630599

Quote
Starlink, at least so far, has resisted all hacking & jamming attempts
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/29/2022 02:36 am
From Elon Musk's Axel Springer interview recently: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-interview-axel-springer-tesla-war-in-ukraine-2022-3

Quote
Döpfner: What happens if the Russians and Chinese are targeting satellites? Is that also a threat for Starlink?

Musk: It was interesting to view the Russian anti-satellite demonstration a few months ago in the context of this conflict. Because that caused a lot of strife for satellite operators. It even had some danger for the space station, where there are Russian cosmonauts. So why did they do that? It was a message in advance of the Ukraine invasion. If you attempt to take out Starlink, this is not easy because there are 2000 satellites. That means a lot of anti-satellite missiles. I hope we do not have to put this to a test, but I think we can launch satellites faster than they can launch anti-satellites missiles.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/29/2022 02:42 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1508565936449622018

Quote
Starlink 🛰 team too! Expecting over 4200 Starlink satellites in operation within 18 months, which is ~2/3 of all active satellites of Earth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 04/03/2022 08:27 pm
SpaceX's Gen2 amended application does have VLEO slots, but don't know if it can overlap successfully with approved V-band system (if I am understanding your implication correctly).
Gen2 in VLEO
5,280 @ 340km
5,280 @ 345km
5,280 @ 350km
3,600 @ 360km

V-Band in VLEO
2,493 @ 335.9km
2,478 @ 340.8km
2,547 @ 345.6km

Generation 2 and V band network will use different frequencies ... And for V band Starlink cannot use all existing terminals..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: leovinus on 04/06/2022 02:42 pm
U.S. Air Force testing SpaceX Starlink as a communications option for supporting F-35A fighter jet
Quote
The Starlink system provided speeds up to 30 times faster during the week long test.
https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/u-s-air-force-testing-spacex-starlink-as-a-communications-option-for-supporting-f-35a-fighter-jet/

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/06/2022 03:01 pm
U.S. Air Force testing SpaceX Starlink as a communications option for supporting F-35A fighter jet
Quote
The Starlink system provided speeds up to 30 times faster during the week long test.
https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/u-s-air-force-testing-spacex-starlink-as-a-communications-option-for-supporting-f-35a-fighter-jet/



I saw that yesterday, the 30x faster is amazing and will get some very series attention from military planners.

Can't wait to see it on commercial flights.

Edit: Also, can't wait to see how many users Starlink adds per month 1 or 2 years down the road.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/06/2022 03:25 pm
I suggest (based on past constellations and some quick back of the envelope cost estimates for replenishment) about 1 million users is the approximate crossover point to being profitable, or at least self-sustaining. Of course, contracts with the military help profitability tremendously as they tend to be higher margin, so they might already be close to profitable if they stopped investing a massive amount to grow the capability.

They’re at, what, a quarter million right now?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 04/06/2022 04:05 pm
I suggest (based on past constellations and some quick back of the envelope cost estimates for replenishment) about 1 million users is the approximate crossover point to being profitable, or at least self-sustaining. Of course, contracts with the military help profitability tremendously as they tend to be higher margin, so they might already be close to profitable if they stopped investing a massive amount to grow the capability.

They’re at, what, a quarter million right now?
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1493358044989767683

That's 250k * $110 * 12 = $330M/year
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/06/2022 04:28 pm
I suggest (based on past constellations and some quick back of the envelope cost estimates for replenishment) about 1 million users is the approximate crossover point to being profitable, or at least self-sustaining. Of course, contracts with the military help profitability tremendously as they tend to be higher margin, so they might already be close to profitable if they stopped investing a massive amount to grow the capability.

They’re at, what, a quarter million right now?
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1493358044989767683

That's 250k * $110 * 12 = $330M/year

I think the rate of adding weekly subscriber's is the important metric until the customer base is larger or stable-ish.  IIRC the latest production number was 5000 terminals per week.  That's far to slow and we know that Starlink wants to get to much higher numbers but they want to get the price down too. 

In typical Elon fashion I'd think they want a 10x or more production rate.  I'm sure the market in north America is in the millions, maybe 10's of millions and then globally once the laser interlinks have global coverage is less dependent on downlink locations then the global demand could suck up  maybe 100,000 terminals per week for some time.

I think Starlink could be a $500B to $1T business, maybe $2T, within the next 10 years.   If SpaceX maintains a controlling interesting they could end up with more profit than they know how to spend on colonizing the Moon and Mars.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 04/06/2022 05:17 pm

I think the rate of adding weekly subscriber's is the important metric until the customer base is larger or stable-ish.  IIRC the latest production number was 5000 terminals per week.  That's far to slow and we know that Starlink wants to get to much higher numbers but they want to get the price down too. 

... snip ...


So adding 250,000 new customers this year is "too slow" ?    That's a 100% growth year over year.  $660 million dollars per year total revenue stream on starlink by EOY 2022.   I estimate this is probably on par with revenue from 10 paying launches, and/or on par with the yearly revenue from NASA projects (dragon, HLS).   I'm sure Elon and SX would like it to be faster, but really, it's hard to complain about that.

I suspect you are correct; that's not yet enough revenue to support 2022's investments/spending on launch, satellite construction, terminal construction, and starship development.   That number is (very roughly) probably billions a year.

Keep in mind that there are other constraints beside user terminals.   Ground stations must be setup, including their internet connections and gateways.   Landing rights must be secured in each country, and various legal frameworks must be accommodated for each.   The satellite network has significant capacity constraints, currently allowing only a few customers per sq km.  Satellite construction needs to be about **5 per day**, maybe more.

So, lot's of work to be done. Growth in users and revenue are impressive, but not yet covering all expenses.   
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 04/06/2022 05:23 pm
Terminals ≠ paying customers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 04/06/2022 05:48 pm
Of course, contracts with the military help profitability tremendously as they tend to be higher margin
This is not always true. 

I've worked at consumer products companies that sold a small amount to the military.  The military contracts ate up a really disproportionate engineering and customer support effort.  We probably did make money on the government contracts, but would probably have turned them down if the requests/demands had been made by anybody other than Uncle Sam.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 04/06/2022 06:08 pm
Terminals ≠ paying customers.

Currently, there is quite a backlog of customers on a waiting list for terminals.

So right now, new terminals are ~= new customers
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/06/2022 06:20 pm
Of course, contracts with the military help profitability tremendously as they tend to be higher margin
This is not always true. 

I've worked at consumer products companies that sold a small amount to the military.  The military contracts ate up a really disproportionate engineering and customer support effort.  We probably did make money on the government contracts, but would probably have turned them down if the requests/demands had been made by anybody other than Uncle Sam.
But with Starlink. The military will likely buy the ground terminals as it is, which will simplify the operational uses and support needs for the military.

AIUI the US military like to have secure satcom access for more lower level units. But don't have enough bandwidth available and trained support personnel with their current satcom assets.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Redclaws on 04/06/2022 09:34 pm
Terminals ≠ paying customers.

What’s your point about the size and nature of the gap?  They’re back ordered and I don’t think there’s a lot of free service occurring.  (Like, for example, the terminals delivered to Ukraine are apparently being paid for by France.). So all that means is there’s a lag between production and paying customers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 04/06/2022 10:22 pm
Of course, contracts with the military help profitability tremendously as they tend to be higher margin
This is not always true. 

I've worked at consumer products companies that sold a small amount to the military.  The military contracts ate up a really disproportionate engineering and customer support effort.  We probably did make money on the government contracts, but would probably have turned them down if the requests/demands had been made by anybody other than Uncle Sam.
But with Starlink. The military will likely buy the ground terminals as it is, which will simplify the operational uses and support needs for the military.

AIUI the US military like to have secure satcom access for more lower level units. But don't have enough bandwidth available and trained support personnel with their current satcom assets.
I thought SX had a couple of contracts in the millions, to examine military use. Hopefully they will break the back of compatibility, and changes SX needs to make to accommodate their needs. Also SX should have a support contract with hours and rates agreed, for non civilian-homeowner customers. The basic package is "drop it where it has a good view of the sky and plug it in. Keep the router under cover." It doesn't include most of what military or communications companies want to do. Additionally, the military will have an internal support service, for basic issues.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Rekt1971 on 04/06/2022 10:25 pm
Terminals ≠ paying customers.

Jonathan Hofeller of Spacex:
Quote
“We currently have 250,000 subscribers, and that’s across consumer, enterprise and many businesses,”

https://spacenews.com/starlink-reaches-250000-subscribers-as-it-targets-aviation-and-other-markets/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 04/07/2022 05:53 pm
Terminals ≠ paying customers.

What’s your point about the size and nature of the gap?  They’re back ordered and I don’t think there’s a lot of free service occurring.  (Like, for example, the terminals delivered to Ukraine are apparently being paid for by France.). So all that means is there’s a lag between production and paying customers.

AIUI some were bought and donated by France, some by Poland, and some straight up donated by SpaceX.

No idea what deals are in place for paying for sustained service.

But overall no I don't expect much difference between terminals in existence and subscriber numbers considering the demand.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 04/07/2022 10:46 pm
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1512143666806239238?s=20&t=1_kvpUvbVHFrBy-OJN_r9A

Quote
Starlink deployment in Ivankiv, Kyiv Oblast

I don't know who gets credit for taking the picture so I'm not going to attach it separately.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Eagandale4114 on 04/09/2022 10:29 pm
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1512143666806239238?s=20&t=1_kvpUvbVHFrBy-OJN_r9A

Quote
Starlink deployment in Ivankiv, Kyiv Oblast

I don't know who gets credit for taking the picture so I'm not going to attach it separately.

The video from where that still came from. (https://reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/tzoxfc/after_long_time_with_no_connection_to_the_outside/) Still not sure of the source as this one is an edit with translated captions.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Lars-J on 04/10/2022 03:24 am
Here is a great article (really a must read) about life on the Ukrainian front lines, and there is a small section that mentions Starlink:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/ukraine-war-marines-front-lines-1334770/

Quote
”At the outpost, the marines are using Starlink, the satellite internet service created by Elon Musk. Zaboronnyy had delivered the equipment to them, and they had it up and running in hours. When Musk announced he would provide Starlink free of charge to Ukraine, there were concerns the Russians could use it to locate Ukrainian positions. But Oleksiy says the military has dealt with that.
“Can you do us a favor?” Maslyak asks. “Can you tell Elon Musk ‘Thank you, from Ukraine’?”
“I had a video chat with my son today for the first time in a while,” Oleksiy says happily. Then a brief flash of emotion creases his face. “He told me to make sure I didn’t die. What am I supposed to say to that?””
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 04/10/2022 12:29 pm
Still not sure of the source as this one is an edit with translated captions.

It is nice to know someone else is feeling my pain when it comes to properly attributing the source.

What isn't pain is the ability to tell loved-ones you are alive and well.  We don't need to give credit where credit is due to know that the people pictured would express their gratitude for being able to get back online if they weren't too busy telling their loved-ones that they are still alive and well.  No staged photo-shoot could ever make the case for why Starlink is necessary as well as this real-world image has done.

Huzzah to Saint Elon.  His Starlink came through when people needed it the most.  Feel free to disagree if you must but this little bit of civilization is worth quintillions of streaks in my book.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 04/10/2022 03:51 pm
Still not sure of the source as this one is an edit with translated captions.

It is nice to know someone else is feeling my pain when it comes to properly attributing the source.

What isn't pain is the ability to tell loved-ones you are alive and well.  We don't need to give credit where credit is due to know that the people pictured would express their gratitude for being able to get back online if they weren't too busy telling their loved-ones that they are still alive and well.  No staged photo-shoot could ever make the case for why Starlink is necessary as well as this real-world image has done.

Huzzah to Saint Elon.  His Starlink came through when people needed it the most.  Feel free to disagree if you must but this little bit of civilization is worth quintillions of streaks in my book.

If we're sanctifying someone over Starlink and throwing cost-benefit analysis out of the window by quintillions, I guess each one of these guys must be the Holy Trinity plus half the Olympic pantheon.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ngumenyuk/status/1511399171261149187

Don't get me wrong, every biy of civilization and constructive spirit helps, and Starlink certainly has done great things for the civilian population (plus some military goodness too!) during this war. It just becomes a little bit out of place when the heroic efforts of "everyday Joes" showing remarkable examples of adaptability and resiliency, with most likely orders of magnitude more impact, are sidelined to hammer in the next batch of shiny for-profit messaging (well paid for by USAID at several times the retail pricing, as I'm sure you are aware).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Redclaws on 04/10/2022 04:17 pm
You know, it can all be good, and I have to say I don’t at all mind Starlink making money in this situation.  We don’t need to sanctify anyone, but it’s all worthy of respect or praise, as you see fit.  The sudden presence of Starlink has been a remarkable showcase for the power of that system with incredible value for marketing, sure, but it’s been that sort of a showcase *because it’s doing a lot of good*.  You might call it “honest signaling” to borrow a term from biology - the excitement reflects the technical reality.

It’s impressive to watch - all of it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: launchwatcher on 04/11/2022 12:59 am

https://mobile.twitter.com/ngumenyuk/status/1511399171261149187

For what it's worth, these heros are splicing fiber optic cable.   No idea what's the norm elsewhere but in the US when this has to happen outdoors it usually is done on a workbench in the back of a specialized van, with ports in the rear doors to let the fiber cables in. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: noogie on 04/20/2022 09:29 pm
SpaceX seems to have neutralized the Russian jamming attempt on its Starlink terminals in Ukraine with a small software fix (article seems to say one line). It will be fascinating if the full story ever emerges

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/04/20/spacex-shut-down-a-russian-electromagnetic-warfare-attack-in-ukraine-last-month-and-the-pentagon-is-taking-notes/
Quote
“The next day [after reports about the Russian jamming effort hit the media], Starlink had slung a line of code and fixed it,” Tremper said. “And suddenly that [Russian jamming attack] was not effective anymore. From [the] EW technologist’s perspective, that is fantastic … and how they did that was eye-watering to me.”
 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/21/2022 03:26 am
SpaceX seems to have neutralized the Russian jamming attempt on its Starlink terminals in Ukraine with a small software fix (article seems to say one line). It will be fascinating if the full story ever emerges
<snip>
My suspicion is that more than one line of code was involved. The one line of code mention in the article likely acted like a key that activate multiple dormant counter jamming features already build into the Starlink system.  ;)

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: tbellman on 04/21/2022 06:35 pm
SpaceX has been awarded $69.95M by NASA as one of six companies to develop and demonstrate a potential successor to NASA's TDRSS network.  NASA plans to buy this as a service.  This award is only for demonstration; actual services will be later procurement/contract.

See this thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56231.0) for more information.

While this is not StarLink, my suspicion is that SpaceX will plan to integrate it with StarLink.  But that's just my personal guess.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 04/22/2022 01:47 am
SpaceX has been awarded $69.95M by NASA as one of six companies to develop and demonstrate a potential successor to NASA's TDRSS network.  NASA plans to buy this as a service.  This award is only for demonstration; actual services will be later procurement/contract.

See this thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56231.0) for more information.

While this is not StarLink, my suspicion is that SpaceX will plan to integrate it with StarLink.  But that's just my personal guess.

Iridium has been used by smallsats/cubesats for telemetry purposes, and I think even some small rockets as well (no special licenses I think makes it easy to integrate). Though Dishy sizes might mean a minimum size for potential space customers. Having a double sided dish that you can mount like a blade/fin on a rocket as an easy addon might be nice...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: AS_501 on 04/22/2022 03:18 am
Did anyone see the Group 4-14 Starlink pass chugging along this evening above the Mid-West and Mid-Atlantic states?  The train was about 3 deg. long, mag. +3-ish, and entered shadow around 9:50 pm Eastern.  Maximum elevation was 41 deg. as viewed from Western PA.  That's only 8 hours after launch...an IMPRESSIVE sight indeed...my first in this cloud-ridden part of the country.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: docmordrid on 04/22/2022 08:43 pm
Did anyone see the Group 4-14 Starlink pass chugging along this evening above the Mid-West and Mid-Atlantic states? 
>

Yes, it was quite a show which made the evening and morning news on all channels. It also resulted in numerous phone calls asking "what the hell is Starlink?"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 04/23/2022 08:48 am
SpaceX seems to have neutralized the Russian jamming attempt on its Starlink terminals in Ukraine with a small software fix (article seems to say one line). It will be fascinating if the full story ever emerges

I think I understood how the Russians were trying to jam  StarLink.
This is the key to understanding:
Since 24 February, roughly four days after Russia invaded Ukraine, spoofing and/or jamming has been intensified in four key geographical areas based on reports from Eurocontrol, EASA’s own Network of Analysts and open-source data, according to EASA. These areas are: the Kaliningrad region and the surrounding Baltic sea and neighboring States; Eastern Finland; the Black Sea; the Eastern Mediterranean area near Cyprus, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria and Israel, as well as Northern Iraq.
https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2022/03/17/easa-warns-of-gps-jamming-around-conflict-zone/

It is almost impossible to  jam the own frequencies 11/14 GHz on which StarLink operates - the Starlink beam is very narrowly directed 3-5 degrees BeamWidth , and the system switches the terminal every 15 seconds to a new satellite. Jamming satellites is also pointless over Ukraine 20-30 sat  at the same time and their beams are also narrowly focused 2-3 degrees. In addition, all electronic warfare systems are focused on lower frequencies, which are used by the military L band (1-2 GHz) and X band (6-8 GHz).

But by jam the GPS signal that StarLink needs to bind the terminal to the territory of a particular country or geographical area (to allow an aircraft or ship not to violate the laws of the country by entering its territorial waters 12 miles from the coast), that is, connect to the right gateway, and  to have the exact time to synchronize the transmission of packets in TDMA protocols between terminal and sat can indeed disrupt the operation of the terminal in a particular location.

It is also clear that in order to get around these interferences, it was really enough just to change the program code, for example, to reject new GPS data if they are completely different from the average for an hour or several hours.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 04/23/2022 01:44 pm
SpaceX seems to have neutralized the Russian jamming attempt on its Starlink terminals in Ukraine with a small software fix (article seems to say one line). It will be fascinating if the full story ever emerges

I think I understood how the Russians were trying to jam  StarLink.
This is the key to understanding:

But by jam the GPS signal that StarLink needs to bind the terminal to the territory of a particular country or geographical area (to allow an aircraft or ship not to violate the laws of the country by entering its territorial waters 12 miles from the coast), that is, connect to the right gateway, and  to have the exact time to synchronize the transmission of packets in TDMA protocols between terminal and sat can indeed disrupt the operation of the terminal in a particular location.

It is also clear that in order to get around these interferences, it was really enough just to change the program code, for example, to reject new GPS data if they are completely different from the average for an hour or several hours.
My information is based on details of a different TDMA satellite protocol, but is pretty much inherent in the way satellite TDMA must work. A terminal needs to know its own exact location and time know where to look for the satellites, and it is convenient to use GPS for this. The terminal also need to know it orientation. But unless a terminal has moved, it does not need to see the GPS signal after it already knows where it is. Once a terminal can find some Starlink satellites, it can refine it clock time by listening to the signals sufficiently well to enter the net, and it will then further refine its clock time by active feedback as part of the TDMA protocol. So you don't need to reject false GPS location data if you are already in the net, you just ignore it, ans you continuously update your clock based on the network time, not the GPS time. You remember your location if you drop off the net, and you switch over to your free-running clock. You do have a problem with time if you turn your terminal off and turn it back on, but it's solvable.

It is even possible to eventually figure out all of this, without GPS, from a completely naive state with no knowledge of location, time, or orientation. It just takes awhile, as the terminal must scan its field of view looking for a satellite at all possible frequencies. Once you see one satellite, the rest of the algorithm goes fairly quickly.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 04/23/2022 03:58 pm
SpaceX seems to have neutralized the Russian jamming attempt on its Starlink terminals in Ukraine with a small software fix (article seems to say one line). It will be fascinating if the full story ever emerges

I think I understood how the Russians were trying to jam  StarLink.
This is the key to understanding:

But by jam the GPS signal that StarLink needs to bind the terminal to the territory of a particular country or geographical area (to allow an aircraft or ship not to violate the laws of the country by entering its territorial waters 12 miles from the coast), that is, connect to the right gateway, and  to have the exact time to synchronize the transmission of packets in TDMA protocols between terminal and sat can indeed disrupt the operation of the terminal in a particular location.

It is also clear that in order to get around these interferences, it was really enough just to change the program code, for example, to reject new GPS data if they are completely different from the average for an hour or several hours.
My information is based on details of a different TDMA satellite protocol, but is pretty much inherent in the way satellite TDMA must work. A terminal needs to know its own exact location and time know where to look for the satellites, and it is convenient to use GPS for this. The terminal also need to know it orientation. But unless a terminal has moved, it does not need to see the GPS signal after it already knows where it is. Once a terminal can find some Starlink satellites, it can refine it clock time by listening to the signals sufficiently well to enter the net, and it will then further refine its clock time by active feedback as part of the TDMA protocol. So you don't need to reject false GPS location data if you are already in the net, you just ignore it, ans you continuously update your clock based on the network time, not the GPS time. You remember your location if you drop off the net, and you switch over to your free-running clock. You do have a problem with time if you turn your terminal off and turn it back on, but it's solvable.

It is even possible to eventually figure out all of this, without GPS, from a completely naive state with no knowledge of location, time, or orientation. It just takes awhile, as the terminal must scan its field of view looking for a satellite at all possible frequencies. Once you see one satellite, the rest of the algorithm goes fairly quickly. 

Thank you. My understanding is that the Terminal must have the exact time to send a packet exactly at the moment when there is its window in the packet in the return channel from the terminals to the satellite. Perhaps, initially, the StarLink system took the current value of the time and coordinates of the terminal from GPS, and it was the jamming of the GSM signal that made StarLink engineers follow the path you suggested.
But in addition to jamming the GPS signal, there is a technology for replacing it, for example, about 5 years ago in Russia there was an interesting case when taxi drivers approaching the Kremlin, (which was very strictly guarded) on their navigators, saw that they were at the Airport 30 km from the Kremlin.
see https://www.vedomosti.ru/technology/articles/2016/12/05/668073-yandeks-teleportatsiyu (it is on Russian but you can use Google translator)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 04/23/2022 04:41 pm
SpaceX seems to have neutralized the Russian jamming attempt on its Starlink terminals in Ukraine with a small software fix (article seems to say one line). It will be fascinating if the full story ever emerges

I think I understood how the Russians were trying to jam  StarLink.
This is the key to understanding:

But by jam the GPS signal that StarLink needs to bind the terminal to the territory of a particular country or geographical area (to allow an aircraft or ship not to violate the laws of the country by entering its territorial waters 12 miles from the coast), that is, connect to the right gateway, and  to have the exact time to synchronize the transmission of packets in TDMA protocols between terminal and sat can indeed disrupt the operation of the terminal in a particular location.

It is also clear that in order to get around these interferences, it was really enough just to change the program code, for example, to reject new GPS data if they are completely different from the average for an hour or several hours.
My information is based on details of a different TDMA satellite protocol, but is pretty much inherent in the way satellite TDMA must work. A terminal needs to know its own exact location and time know where to look for the satellites, and it is convenient to use GPS for this. The terminal also need to know it orientation. But unless a terminal has moved, it does not need to see the GPS signal after it already knows where it is. Once a terminal can find some Starlink satellites, it can refine it clock time by listening to the signals sufficiently well to enter the net, and it will then further refine its clock time by active feedback as part of the TDMA protocol. So you don't need to reject false GPS location data if you are already in the net, you just ignore it, ans you continuously update your clock based on the network time, not the GPS time. You remember your location if you drop off the net, and you switch over to your free-running clock. You do have a problem with time if you turn your terminal off and turn it back on, but it's solvable.

It is even possible to eventually figure out all of this, without GPS, from a completely naive state with no knowledge of location, time, or orientation. It just takes awhile, as the terminal must scan its field of view looking for a satellite at all possible frequencies. Once you see one satellite, the rest of the algorithm goes fairly quickly. 

Thank you. My understanding is that the Terminal must have the exact time to send a packet exactly at the moment when there is its window in the packet in the return channel from the terminals to the satellite. Perhaps, initially, the StarLink system took the current value of the time and coordinates of the terminal from GPS, and it was the jamming of the GSM signal that made StarLink engineers follow the path you suggested.
But in addition to jamming the GPS signal, there is a technology for replacing it, for example, about 5 years ago in Russia there was an interesting case when taxi drivers approaching the Kremlin, (which was very strictly guarded) on their navigators, saw that they were at the Airport 30 km from the Kremlin.
see https://www.vedomosti.ru/technology/articles/2016/12/05/668073-yandeks-teleportatsiyu (it is on Russian but you can use Google translator)
This is again a description of an abstract system and my not apply precisely to Starlink. Depending on the exact details of the specific TDMA technology, there will be a relatively forgiving time window for the acquisition slot to be used to enter the network. After the terminal has entered the network, the satellite will provide feedback to correct the terminal's time. The satellite identifies itself continuously and provides it own time tic, so the terminal knows where the satellite is exactly before the terminal transmits anything.  A terminal must transmit  each burst at exactly the correct time so that it's transmission reaches the satellite when the satellite expects it. This depends on both the time the terminal transmits and the distance to the satellite, which in turn depends on the terminal's location. Because the beam footprint is quite small (relative to e.g. geosynchronous satellite footprints) the distance uncertainty is also small, so the acquisition slot only needs to have a fairly small amount of extra pre- and post-slot buffer to account for the uncertainty. For example, if the maximum possible distance difference in the beam is 300 km, the time uncertainty is 100 microseconds. Conceptually, the satellite says "acquisition slot will be 500 ms from ...NOW". The terminal guesses its position in the beam, computes the time to transmit by subtracting the speed-of-light delay from the ACQ time. It then transmits its "hello" into the ACQ slot. The satellite receives the "hello", computes the time offset from the exact ideal ACQ time, and sends a message to the terminal to tell it the discrepancy: this lets the terminal compute the actual distance to the satellite as of the time it transmitted the "hello". Contention in the ACQ slot is rare, because in general only a very few terminals are in the process of entering the network in any particular beam at any given instant.

A terminal that is not moving can quickly refine its location based on the way the path length varies as the satellite moves. The more time, and especially the more different satellites it sees, the better it knows its position. This is actually much more precise than GPS. GPS is superior for most uses because a GPS terminal is receive-only and uses an omnidirectional antenna, but since a satellite terminal is already forced to be bidirectional and use a pointing antenna you may as well take advantage of it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: waveney on 04/24/2022 06:40 am
I was heavily involved with the development of a TDMA system many moons ago.   This had some flex.  Once the terminal was roughly time aligned, it had a 12 bit window to start its transmission in.  Aiming to start in the middle of the window.  The head end then sent nudges to the terminal to move its launch point up and down by a bit.  If it was ever outside of that window, the head end would send a stop to the terminal, which would then need to restart its full re-sequencing cycle (this took several seconds).   The really clever bit was how it did that re-sequencing without corrupting other traffic.   (That was what I did - it got me a patent...)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 04/24/2022 07:01 am
 These terminals aren't going to people's houses. They'll all be set up as mobile and re-connect with current locations every time they come up. Possibly every time they switch satellites, at the cost of an extra few seconds of down time.
 And people who say that it's almost impossible to jam antennas because they're high gain obviously get their knowledge from Popular Mechanics or cereal boxes. Spend a few decades tracking down inadvertent jamming before you pretend to be an expert.

 
I was heavily involved with the development of a TDMA system many moons ago.   This had some flex.  Once the terminal was roughly time aligned, it had a 12 bit window to start its transmission in.  Aiming to start in the middle of the window.  The head end then sent nudges to the terminal to move its launch point up and down by a bit.  If it was ever outside of that window, the head end would send a stop to the terminal, which would then need to restart its full re-sequencing cycle (this took several seconds).   The really clever bit was how it did that re-sequencing without corrupting other traffic.   (That was what I did - it got me a patent...)

 Not sure what you came up with, but connection and timing were usually done on separate control channels in my stuff. Some ancient systems were manual over the phone, which really made sense when the main reason you supplied the thing was because the area didn't have phone service.
  Your scheme might have been what allowed the higher speed vsat stuff (3mbs back then) on ships so we could use the permanent bandwidth we had leased.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: waveney on 04/24/2022 07:42 am
These terminals aren't going to people's houses. They'll all be set up as mobile and re-connect with current locations every time they come up. Possibly every time they switch satellites, at the cost of an extra few seconds of down time.
 And people who say that it's almost impossible to jam antennas because they're high gain obviously get their knowledge from Popular Mechanics or cereal boxes. Spend a few decades tracking down inadvertent jamming before you pretend to be an expert.

 
I was heavily involved with the development of a TDMA system many moons ago.   This had some flex.  Once the terminal was roughly time aligned, it had a 12 bit window to start its transmission in.  Aiming to start in the middle of the window.  The head end then sent nudges to the terminal to move its launch point up and down by a bit.  If it was ever outside of that window, the head end would send a stop to the terminal, which would then need to restart its full re-sequencing cycle (this took several seconds).   The really clever bit was how it did that re-sequencing without corrupting other traffic.   (That was what I did - it got me a patent...)

 Not sure what you came up with, but connection and timing were usually done on separate control channels in my stuff. Some ancient systems were manual over the phone, which really made sense when the main reason you supplied the thing was because the area didn't have phone service.
  Your scheme might have been what allowed the higher speed vsat stuff (3mbs back then) on ships so we could use the permanent bandwidth we had leased.

The system I was involved with was optical operating at a bit rate of ~10G.  A 12 bit window was pretty short.   The re timing was done in band on the same medium at the same time as real data was being used on the large number of other users.   it was an "Interesting" technical problem to solve.   It was done by very carefully timed pattern of injected errors at an error rate well below what the in-built error correction could correct for.  A re-timing took about 20 seconds per terminal (It was the patent I was most proud of)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 04/24/2022 11:42 pm
(It was the patent I was most proud of)

Quit teasing us and tells us the patent number please!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: waveney on 04/25/2022 06:54 am
(It was the patent I was most proud of)

Quit teasing us and tells us the patent number please!

I actually can't remember.  I have ~35 to my name.  Mostly in telecoms, mostly relating to ATM.  Some on optics, and some on network architectures.  (My background is software - I had two optics patents - because I asked some optics experts an "interesting" question...)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 04/25/2022 08:21 am

I actually can't remember.  I have ~35 to my name.  Mostly in telecoms, mostly relating to ATM.  Some on optics, and some on network architectures.  (My background is software - I had two optics patents - because I asked some optics experts an "interesting" question...)
I remember ATM. It was going to be from end to end and replace all the other network protocols.
 How did that work out?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: dglow on 04/25/2022 09:14 am

I actually can't remember.  I have ~35 to my name.  Mostly in telecoms, mostly relating to ATM.  Some on optics, and some on network architectures.  (My background is software - I had two optics patents - because I asked some optics experts an "interesting" question...)
I remember ATM. It was going to be from end to end and replace all the other network protocols.
 How did that work out?

Its creators pivoted to cash out.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: waveney on 04/25/2022 11:34 am

I actually can't remember.  I have ~35 to my name.  Mostly in telecoms, mostly relating to ATM.  Some on optics, and some on network architectures.  (My background is software - I had two optics patents - because I asked some optics experts an "interesting" question...)
I remember ATM. It was going to be from end to end and replace all the other network protocols.
 How did that work out?

Some people involved short themselves in the foot with a machine gun.   It could have done everything, it just required some people not being stupid.   Their stupidity ruined ATM, and just left Ethernet to takeover.  It is still there in the background for a lot of DSL systems and network infrastructure.

(I was an ATM forum VP for a couple of years, as well as leading my companies technical broadband standards and research). 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 04/25/2022 03:23 pm

I actually can't remember.  I have ~35 to my name.  Mostly in telecoms, mostly relating to ATM.  Some on optics, and some on network architectures.  (My background is software - I had two optics patents - because I asked some optics experts an "interesting" question...)
I remember ATM. It was going to be from end to end and replace all the other network protocols.
 How did that work out?
Since the invention of the telegraph, but especially from about 1950 until about 2000, the cost of electronics and the cost of transmission were both dropping dramatically, but each was dropping non-continuously. This meant that the ROI for the cost of processing per bit shifted back and forth a lot. ATM came about during a time when optical fiber had suddenly and radically dropped the cost of transmission, so the need to simplify the the processing again became critical as the bit rates were far too high for general-purpose logic. But logic speeds eventually caught up and processing Ethernet frames at these speeds became feasible.

Sitting on top of these underlying technological changes, we had the much more visible battles between the old guard PTTs and the new Internet. X.25, Frame Relay, and ATM were basically attempts to move back to a per-call billing model using both customer interfaces and inter-carrier interfaces that were regulated, copyrighted, and otherwise restricted to the elite, while Ethernet and especially IP were "free". My biggest professional regret is that I did not release an open source X.25 software stack and a free X.25 driver for Windows in 1983.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 04/25/2022 03:51 pm
ATM came about during a time when optical fiber had suddenly and radically dropped the cost of transmission, so the need to simplify the the processing again became critical as the bit rates were far too high for general-purpose logic. But logic speeds eventually caught up and processing Ethernet frames at these speeds became feasible.
Actually, it's much harder to route small packets than big packets.
ATM was kinda the last-hurrah for the voice oriented, circuit-switching era. But as Internet came about, the NEED for ethernet-sized packets rose tremendously. And since ATM has huge overhead for these, it died off.
155Mbps ATM LANE wasn't really much faster than 100Mbps Ethernet, and was way more expensive.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: waveney on 04/25/2022 04:18 pm
ATM came about during a time when optical fiber had suddenly and radically dropped the cost of transmission, so the need to simplify the the processing again became critical as the bit rates were far too high for general-purpose logic. But logic speeds eventually caught up and processing Ethernet frames at these speeds became feasible.
Actually, it's much harder to route small packets than big packets.
ATM was kinda the last-hurrah for the voice oriented, circuit-switching era. But as Internet came about, the NEED for ethernet-sized packets rose tremendously. And since ATM has huge overhead for these, it died off.
155Mbps ATM LANE wasn't really much faster than 100Mbps Ethernet, and was way more expensive.

The problems were the higher layers developed by PTTs not the ATM itself.  The ATM could have been the cheapest switch out there, it was the dross on top that was a partial killer, the other was the 2-3 yer  delay caused by the 48 byte packet compromise.   I could see how the world was changing, and the US had nearly won the argument for 64 byte packets.  All but one of the worlds manufacturers where happy with 64.  Only ETSI (Mainly France Telecom and allies) where still holding out for 32.  I (Marconi) was the first European company to break rank - it was very unpopular at ETSI.    The US were impatient.  Having been an ATM proponent,MPLS is what ATM should have been. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 04/25/2022 05:15 pm
ATM came about during a time when optical fiber had suddenly and radically dropped the cost of transmission, so the need to simplify the the processing again became critical as the bit rates were far too high for general-purpose logic. But logic speeds eventually caught up and processing Ethernet frames at these speeds became feasible.
Actually, it's much harder to route small packets than big packets.
ATM was kinda the last-hurrah for the voice oriented, circuit-switching era. But as Internet came about, the NEED for ethernet-sized packets rose tremendously. And since ATM has huge overhead for these, it died off.
155Mbps ATM LANE wasn't really much faster than 100Mbps Ethernet, and was way more expensive.
That's true, but ATM does not route packets. It switches cells. True, you need to switch 20 cells to forward a single large(ish) packet, but the forwarding tables are so tiny they are in local SRAM, and the forwarding logic is a relatively small amount of custom silicon. switching time is constant, buffer size is highly constrained, etc.

Note that much of this is relevant to Starlink (remember Starlink? this is a thread about Starlink...) The satellites almost certainly to not do IP routing. They almost certainly use some sort of frame switching that is specialized for the specifics of their network design.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: waveney on 04/25/2022 05:26 pm
ATM came about during a time when optical fiber had suddenly and radically dropped the cost of transmission, so the need to simplify the the processing again became critical as the bit rates were far too high for general-purpose logic. But logic speeds eventually caught up and processing Ethernet frames at these speeds became feasible.
Actually, it's much harder to route small packets than big packets.
ATM was kinda the last-hurrah for the voice oriented, circuit-switching era. But as Internet came about, the NEED for ethernet-sized packets rose tremendously. And since ATM has huge overhead for these, it died off.
155Mbps ATM LANE wasn't really much faster than 100Mbps Ethernet, and was way more expensive.
That's true, but ATM does not route packets. It switches cells. True, you need to switch 20 cells to forward a single large(ish) packet, but the forwarding tables are so tiny they are in local SRAM, and the forwarding logic is a relatively small amount of custom silicon. switching time is constant, buffer size is highly constrained, etc.
That is only partially true.  It depended on the switch and network architecture.  There were other architectures that relied on rather larger amounts of custom silicon, that could have been very competitive.  It was quiet possible to build switches and networks that could switch just about anything concurrently.  (Remember I was involved in both switch and network architectures)

Note that much of this is relevant to Starlink (remember Starlink? this is a thread about Starlink...) The satellites almost certainly to not do IP routing. They almost certainly use some sort of frame switching that is specialized for the specifics of their network design.
I agree, if it was not that I am both retired (now) and living in the UK, I would have fitted into Starlink's development rather well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 04/25/2022 07:54 pm
. After the terminal has entered the network, the satellite will provide feedback to correct the terminal's time. The satellite identifies itself continuously and provides it own time tic, so the terminal knows where the satellite is exactly before the terminal transmits anything. 

In the option you proposed, there are 2 "system time" values
​​1) which the GPS of the terminal has and
2) which must be calculated from the value of the GPS received by the satellite plus  a correction for time what needed for the transmission (including hardware delay) of this information from sat  to the terminal. At the same time, the distance of the satellite terminal is constantly changing.
And the terminal should choose some 1 value if they differ.
In my opinion, this complicates the system and increases the likelihood of errors. It's easier to trust the value that terminal's own GPS produces. StarLink is still a consumer terminal, and not for military use
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 04/26/2022 02:25 am
. After the terminal has entered the network, the satellite will provide feedback to correct the terminal's time. The satellite identifies itself continuously and provides it own time tic, so the terminal knows where the satellite is exactly before the terminal transmits anything. 

In the option you proposed, there are 2 "system time" values
​​1) which the GPS of the terminal has and
2) which must be calculated from the value of the GPS received by the satellite plus  a correction for time what needed for the transmission (including hardware delay) of this information from sat  to the terminal. At the same time, the distance of the satellite terminal is constantly changing.
And the terminal should choose some 1 value if they differ.
In my opinion, this complicates the system and increases the likelihood of errors. It's easier to trust the value that terminal's own GPS produces. StarLink is still a consumer terminal, and not for military use
The satellite terminal systems I am familiar with rely on the signal from the satellite, not GPS. The satellite is already sending data in fixed-length FEC blocks at a constant rate so the last bit of each FEC block is a defacto time tic and the terminal must be listening to it anyway. In a TDMA system, the satellite's receive timeslots must be relative to the satellite. I did not "propose" this system. I was a system architect (and often my own programmer as well) in the data-over-satellite industry from about 2004 until about 2016, and that's how we did it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Lars-J on 04/28/2022 04:36 am
This is a part of a twitter thread, an interview with a soldier that has been fighting in the Ukraine armed forces in the Donbas front, and it has a mention of Starlink:

https://twitter.com/dpatrikarakos/status/1519303470192410624

Quote
"I want to say one thing: @elonmusk's Starlink is what changed the war in #Ukraine's favour. #Russia went out of its way to blow up all our comms. Now they can't. Starlink works under Katyusha fire, under artillery fire. It even works in Mariupol."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 04/28/2022 09:52 am
This is a part of a twitter thread, an interview with a soldier that has been fighting in the Ukraine armed forces in the Donbas front, and it has a mention of Starlink:

https://twitter.com/dpatrikarakos/status/1519303470192410624

Quote
"I want to say one thing: @elonmusk's Starlink is what changed the war in #Ukraine's favour. #Russia went out of its way to blow up all our comms. Now they can't. Starlink works under Katyusha fire, under artillery fire. It even works in Mariupol."

Impressed they managed to smuggle a dishy into Mariupol, and it would explain how the Azov battalion is still posting to telegram/facebook/twitter.

Considering they usually hunker down in bunker areas though, linking up their smartphones to dishy seems problematic (wi-fi would be a bit dangerous))(well, you can get those USB-C to ethernet adapters for smartphones, then run a ethernet line from dishy's router, but that only gets you maybe 180m max?). Plus power supply would be a recurring problem for them. With all the artillery bombardment, you probably can't even lay out a rollup solar array without getting hit eventually.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 04/28/2022 05:56 pm
https://twitter.com/RonEagleson/status/1519423526431690753

Quote
Starlink published "Conjunction Avoidance with Crewed Space Stations." Lots of details about orbit raising nuances but not much is written about the disposal phase. https://api.starlink.com/public-files/space_station_conjunction_avoidance.pdf

Actually they clarified in the document that disposal phase is similar to raising, just in reverse. Anyway, seems super detailed, but I'm not a GNC engineer so not sure if this is normal for something a space company shares in public.

Quote from: space_station_conjunction_avoidance.pdf
1 Introduction

SpaceX has made space safety one of its top priorities when planning trajectories of Starlink satellites, especially when crossing the orbits of the International Space Station (ISS) and the Chinese Space Station Tiangong. Furthermore, SpaceX is committed to transparently sharing any information that improves the cooperation with the space station operators. As part of this effort, this memorandum describes how Starlink trajectories are designed to avoid conjunctions with the ISS and Tiangong following two guiding principles:

• Prevent the trajectories of Starlink satellites from entering a keepout volume centered at either space station to guarantee the safety of the crew and minimize the impact on the space station’s operations. This includes providing crewed space stations the right of way when planning trajectories so that no avoidance maneuvers are required on their part.

• Implement an equitable approach to all crewed space stations, regardless of national origin.

Section 2 explains how the trajectories of the Starlink satellites are parameterized and presents the time-optimal path-planning algorithm used under nominal conditions. Next, the costs of deviating from the optimal trajectory when the optimal solution is not viable due to, for example, potential conjunctions with either space station are discussed. The motion of Starlink satellites relative to the space stations and SpaceX’s high-fidelity model for predicting conjunctions are described in Section 3. Finally, Section 4 outlines how the trajectories are adjusted to avoid potential conjunctions and how the operations team monitors and reacts to potential conjunctions.

The techniques for avoiding conjunctions at the planning stages presented here are an additional precaution in addition to Starlink’s collision-avoidance system. In this context, conjunction avoidance during planning refers to designing trajectories that maintain satellites far away from space stations under nominal circumstances. Deconflicting trajectories at the planning stage requires predicting potential conjunctions several weeks into the future, which naturally limits the accuracy of the results. As part of SpaceX’s multitiered approach to space safety, Starlink’s automatic collision avoidance system allows satellites to plan maneuvers to minimize the collision probability during close approaches that could not be avoided when planning.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/28/2022 06:10 pm
This is a part of a twitter thread, an interview with a soldier that has been fighting in the Ukraine armed forces in the Donbas front, and it has a mention of Starlink:

https://twitter.com/dpatrikarakos/status/1519303470192410624

Quote
"I want to say one thing: @elonmusk's Starlink is what changed the war in #Ukraine's favour. #Russia went out of its way to blow up all our comms. Now they can't. Starlink works under Katyusha fire, under artillery fire. It even works in Mariupol."
USA military has been interested in Starlink. Ukraine's real world combat experience should give military and SpaceX lots of feedback and help in design of military version of ground station.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Lars-J on 04/29/2022 03:36 pm
Another article about Starlink in Ukraine, from NBC:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/elon-musks-starlink-internet-becomes-lifeline-ukrainians-rcna25360

Quote

“This is not an ideal internet,” said Dmytro Zinchuk, the head of network operations for the internet provider Freenet, which mostly serves the area around Kyiv and western and northern Ukraine. “But still when there is no connection at all, Starlink is just a salvation for people who have been without connection for many weeks.”

He said his company has so far integrated five government-donated Starlink terminals in its mad dash to get as many customers back online as possible in areas that faced heavy Russian bombardment. That can mean wiring hundreds of people to a terminal meant for a single household.

“We are well aware that Starlink is not really created for this, but we managed to launch 150+ subscribers on one Starlink,” Zinchuk said in an interview on the messaging app Telegram.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/29/2022 09:37 pm
Perhaps this belongs in another thread so Mods please move or delete if you feel appropriate.

MY question is, how many of the 1440 Starlinks have been launched for the 53.2 degree shell? 

I'm finding total number of Starlinks but not by shell.

I'm really interested in the 70 and 97.6 degree shells and make this truly global coverage and I know they want the second shell out of the way before focusing on those.

Thanks
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Ghoti on 04/29/2022 11:03 pm
Perhaps this belongs in another thread so Mods please move or delete if you feel appropriate.

MY question is, how many of the 1440 Starlinks have been launched for the 53.2 degree shell? 

I'm finding total number of Starlinks but not by shell.

I'm really interested in the 70 and 97.6 degree shells and make this truly global coverage and I know they want the second shell out of the way before focusing on those.

Thanks
I don't know where to find the data but if you go to https://satellitemap.space/ you can rotate the globe to view Starlinks in the Antarctic higher degree shells. Clicking on individual dots shows the planes they are in. I seems like there are only 3 polar orbit planes so far.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 04/30/2022 12:56 am
There are some great graphics about the various shells being posted fairly regularly here: https://forum.raumfahrer.net/index.php?topic=13231.2275
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: LouScheffer on 05/01/2022 04:35 pm
Quit teasing us and tells us the patent number please!
I actually can't remember. 
Off topic, but to find your patents, go to patents.google.com and type in your name as listed on the patent, plus a keyword or two.  In my experience this will drag up the relevant patent in seconds.  I'd do it for you but don't know your real name or how you would have listed it on patents.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: waveney on 05/01/2022 06:07 pm
Quit teasing us and tells us the patent number please!
I actually can't remember. 
Off topic, but to find your patents, go to patents.google.com and type in your name as listed on the patent, plus a keyword or two.  In my experience this will drag up the relevant patent in seconds.  I'd do it for you but don't know your real name or how you would have listed it on patents.

Ok it found  44 entries with my name.   (Richard (J | John) Proctor).  Will take some effort to find the relevant patent.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: archae86 on 05/02/2022 02:00 pm
Off topic, but to find your patents, go to patents.google.com and type in your name as listed on the patent, plus a keyword or two.  In my experience this will drag up the relevant patent in seconds.  I'd do it for you but don't know your real name or how you would have listed it on patents.
Off topic, but thanks Lou.  It found my single patent granted in 1976 once I imposed a date restriction to block the noise of more recent ones in another field.  It raised my morale by telling me that 44 more recent ones had cited mine, as recently as this year!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: meekGee on 05/03/2022 12:15 am

I actually can't remember.  I have ~35 to my name.  Mostly in telecoms, mostly relating to ATM.  Some on optics, and some on network architectures.  (My background is software - I had two optics patents - because I asked some optics experts an "interesting" question...)
I remember ATM. It was going to be from end to end and replace all the other network protocols.
 How did that work out?
Since the invention of the telegraph, but especially from about 1950 until about 2000, the cost of electronics and the cost of transmission were both dropping dramatically, but each was dropping non-continuously. This meant that the ROI for the cost of processing per bit shifted back and forth a lot. ATM came about during a time when optical fiber had suddenly and radically dropped the cost of transmission, so the need to simplify the the processing again became critical as the bit rates were far too high for general-purpose logic. But logic speeds eventually caught up and processing Ethernet frames at these speeds became feasible.

Sitting on top of these underlying technological changes, we had the much more visible battles between the old guard PTTs and the new Internet. X.25, Frame Relay, and ATM were basically attempts to move back to a per-call billing model using both customer interfaces and inter-carrier interfaces that were regulated, copyrighted, and otherwise restricted to the elite, while Ethernet and especially IP were "free". My biggest professional regret is that I did not release an open source X.25 software stack and a free X.25 driver for Windows in 1983.
Aww I missed all the fun!

But yeah. A connection oriented model today would seem out of place on the global fabric.   But for Starlink's internal transport later, there will (likely) be a dynamic NxN routing table, and that starts sounding like a connectionist model.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 05/03/2022 04:30 pm
Colorful(NSFW) description of the value of Starlink to front line troops in Ukraine from James Vasquez.

https://twitter.com/jmvasquez1974/status/1521470248142180352?s=20&t=wjN2JPY0AhhKf5Mpjin91Q

Quote
I just want to thank Elon Musk for the Starlink system.  It came in very hand today.  It saved a lot of our XXXXX.  Thank you sir.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 05/05/2022 01:09 pm
https://support.starlink.com/?topic=1426e78a-7384-0334-3fc0-ddf5a76d7afe

What is Starlink's Portability Feature and Policy?

For an additional monthly fee, the Portability feature enables users to temporarily move their Starlink to new locations in order to receive service anywhere within the same continent Starlink provides active coverage. To see active coverage areas, please view the Starlink Availability Map. Portable users are served best effort and can expect lower service levels than fixed users, particularly in areas marked as "Waitlist" on the Availability Map.

Add Portability on Your Account:

* If you are an active customer, you can enable Portability from your account page and it will take effect immediately.

* If you have multiple Starlinks, Portability must be selected and purchased for each location.

* When you enable Portability, you are charged on your next monthly invoice. Portability is charged in full monthly increments and cannot be pro-rated. The Portability feature and billing charges will be ongoing until you decide to disable it.  Once you disable Portability, the recurring charge will stop after your next monthly invoice and Portability will only remain active for the remainder of the current billing cycle. For example, if you enable Portability on March 12th and your next billing date is on April 1st, you will be charged $25 on April 1st for the full previous month. 

Limitations:

* Best Effort Service: Portability service is provided on a best effort basis. Stated speeds and uninterrupted use of services are not guaranteed. Starlink prioritizes network resources for users at their registered service address. When you bring your Starlink to a new location, this prioritization may result in degraded service, particularly at times of peak usage or network congestion.

* International Travel: Starlink can only be used within the same continent as the registered Service Address. If you use Starlink in a foreign country for more than two months, you will be required to move your registered service address to your new location or purchase an additional Starlink to maintain service.

* No In-Motion Use:  We do not support Starlink use in motion at this time. Using the Starlink Kit in motion will void the limited warranty of your Kit. While our teams are actively working to make it possible to use Starlink on moving vehicles (e.g., automobiles, RVs, boats), Starlink is not yet configured to be safely used in this way.

Related questions:

Does Starlink Portability replace the need for changing service addresses?

Can I move Starlink to a different Service Address?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: mn on 05/05/2022 01:33 pm
Quote
* No In-Motion Use:  We do not support Starlink use in motion at this time. Using the Starlink Kit in motion will void the limited warranty of your Kit. While our teams are actively working to make it possible to use Starlink on moving vehicles (e.g., automobiles, RVs, boats),  Starlink is not yet configured to be safely used in this way.

What does safety have to do with using starlink in motion?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: abaddon on 05/05/2022 01:48 pm
Quote
* No In-Motion Use:  We do not support Starlink use in motion at this time. Using the Starlink Kit in motion will void the limited warranty of your Kit. While our teams are actively working to make it possible to use Starlink on moving vehicles (e.g., automobiles, RVs, boats),  Starlink is not yet configured to be safely used in this way.

What does safety have to do with using starlink in motion?
The dish does have to move to find satellites, yes?  Maybe tracking while accelerating is no bueno.  Maybe the tracking motors are locked down in a safe configuration when powered down and aren't when active.  Maybe the tracking causes undue stress when it's not in a fixed location.  I am just guessing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 05/05/2022 02:00 pm
Not sure why the motion would be a safety issue - I live on a boat and now have Starlink. No fancy setup (ie no active stabilised mount) and also have disabled the motors in the Starlink so that less power is used. Works fine even with a pitching boat - get random signal loss  when it gets really bumpy but regains quickly. It is currently geofenced - when you go outside the 12 mile limit it’s an instant disconnect even if you are still in range of a ground station. Hopefully this will change over time.

So yeah maybe SpaceX marketing are just punting on this while they figure out final messaging.

Quote
* No In-Motion Use:  We do not support Starlink use in motion at this time. Using the Starlink Kit in motion will void the limited warranty of your Kit. While our teams are actively working to make it possible to use Starlink on moving vehicles (e.g., automobiles, RVs, boats),  Starlink is not yet configured to be safely used in this way.

What does safety have to do with using starlink in motion?
The dish does have to move to find satellites, yes?  Maybe tracking while accelerating is no bueno.  Maybe the tracking motors are locked down in a safe configuration when powered down and aren't when active.  Maybe the tracking causes undue stress when it's not in a fixed location.  I am just guessing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/05/2022 02:43 pm
Quote
* No In-Motion Use:  We do not support Starlink use in motion at this time. Using the Starlink Kit in motion will void the limited warranty of your Kit. While our teams are actively working to make it possible to use Starlink on moving vehicles (e.g., automobiles, RVs, boats),  Starlink is not yet configured to be safely used in this way.

What does safety have to do with using starlink in motion?
Probably needs regulatory approval before mobile Starlink deployment. The authorities need to evaluate safety issues with mobile Starlink terminals.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 05/05/2022 05:29 pm
Quote
* No In-Motion Use:  We do not support Starlink use in motion at this time. Using the Starlink Kit in motion will void the limited warranty of your Kit. While our teams are actively working to make it possible to use Starlink on moving vehicles (e.g., automobiles, RVs, boats),  Starlink is not yet configured to be safely used in this way.

What does safety have to do with using starlink in motion?

I imagine liability and regulations. For example, if your improperly attached Starlink goes flying off the roof of your car and hits somebody it is a potential safety problem. Until they provide a proper means of securing the device they have to warn you not to do it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 05/05/2022 07:51 pm
Quote
* No In-Motion Use:  We do not support Starlink use in motion at this time. Using the Starlink Kit in motion will void the limited warranty of your Kit. While our teams are actively working to make it possible to use Starlink on moving vehicles (e.g., automobiles, RVs, boats),  Starlink is not yet configured to be safely used in this way.

What does safety have to do with using starlink in motion?

I imagine liability and regulations. For example, if your improperly attached Starlink goes flying off the roof of your car and hits somebody it is a potential safety problem. Until they provide a proper means of securing the device they have to warn you not to do it.

Even simpler: The spectrum is authorized with elevation angles, transmitter strength and number of beams per area based on the maximum power received by a person on the ground/in the air/... Legally, SpaceX can't strictly guarantee that a person next to a swaying car won't receive more than x W/m² from a stray beam. In practice, there isn't much of a safety concern.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 05/06/2022 03:57 pm
Could the US military dominate space via Starlink’s satellite network? (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3176641/could-us-military-dominate-space-starlinks-satellite-network)

Quote from: scmp.com
The international community should be on high alert for the US Armed Forces’ potential domination of outer space via SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet system, the official newspaper of the Chinese military said on Thursday.

“The Starlink project has decided to increase the planned 12,000 satellites to 42,000, underscoring that it is widely distributed, flexible and could be reconfigured quickly,” a PLA Daily commentary said.

“The ambition to militarise Starlink and its barbaric expansion deserve high alert from the international community.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 05/06/2022 04:37 pm
Quote
* No In-Motion Use:  We do not support Starlink use in motion at this time. Using the Starlink Kit in motion will void the limited warranty of your Kit. While our teams are actively working to make it possible to use Starlink on moving vehicles (e.g., automobiles, RVs, boats),  Starlink is not yet configured to be safely used in this way.

What does safety have to do with using starlink in motion?

I imagine liability and regulations. For example, if your improperly attached Starlink goes flying off the roof of your car and hits somebody it is a potential safety problem. Until they provide a proper means of securing the device they have to warn you not to do it.

Even simpler: The spectrum is authorized with elevation angles, transmitter strength and number of beams per area based on the maximum power received by a person on the ground/in the air/... Legally, SpaceX can't strictly guarantee that a person next to a swaying car won't receive more than x W/m² from a stray beam. In practice, there isn't much of a safety concern.

Beams aren't going to "sway". Tx is cut off the instant you lose rx. Also the reason you won't be sending a beam into the truck cab next to you.
 And, I bet the mobile dishes will have inertial sensors to help keep the beam on target.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/06/2022 05:25 pm
Could the US military dominate space via Starlink’s satellite network? (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3176641/could-us-military-dominate-space-starlinks-satellite-network)

Quote from: scmp.com
The international community should be on high alert for the US Armed Forces’ potential domination of outer space via SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet system, the official newspaper of the Chinese military said on Thursday.

“The Starlink project has decided to increase the planned 12,000 satellites to 42,000, underscoring that it is widely distributed, flexible and could be reconfigured quickly,” a PLA Daily commentary said.

“The ambition to militarise Starlink and its barbaric expansion deserve high alert from the international community.”
The US military already does.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 05/06/2022 09:18 pm
Quote
* No In-Motion Use:  We do not support Starlink use in motion at this time. Using the Starlink Kit in motion will void the limited warranty of your Kit. While our teams are actively working to make it possible to use Starlink on moving vehicles (e.g., automobiles, RVs, boats),  Starlink is not yet configured to be safely used in this way.

What does safety have to do with using starlink in motion?
In my opinion there is at least a legal problem. The ITU has the term of FSS (Fixed Satellite Service) and MSS ( Mobile Satellite Service) . As far as I remember, SpaceX applied to the FCC  for StarLink as the FSS .. or Fixed Satellite VSAT System (see page 3)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 05/06/2022 09:56 pm
They already test starlink on aircraft. So it's already MSS.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: docmordrid on 05/06/2022 11:33 pm
They already test starlink on aircraft. So it's already MSS.

More than test, they've already signed contracts with Hawaiian Airlines and an air charter service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 05/07/2022 05:47 pm
They already test starlink on aircraft. So it's already MSS.
IMO - testing and regular services for a fee are very different concepts from the point of view of the law
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Eagandale4114 on 05/10/2022 07:33 pm
Using starlink to coordinate artillery strikes

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1523791050313433088.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/11/2022 12:36 am
That thread doesn't seem right.  Currently, I don't think Starlink users have e-mail addresses provided by SpaceX, so they can't send encrypted e-mails to one another.  Further, right now, all messages would go through a ground station.

Maybe the Ukrainians have a special set up or the thread is simplifying the explanation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 05/11/2022 05:27 am
That thread doesn't seem right.  Currently, I don't think Starlink users have e-mail addresses provided by SpaceX, so they can't send encrypted e-mails to one another.  Further, right now, all messages would go through a ground station.

Maybe the Ukrainians have a special set up or the thread is simplifying the explanation.

Matrix/Element/Riot is a fairly popular decentralized encrypted p2p chat system, a fork of which is currently being used within the french government (because politicians were using Telegram, which makes vulnerable to russian actions). Wouldn't be hard to fire up a closed Matrix ecosystem and use the Element client for smartphones and tablets. Starlink provides the IP transport, enabling any conventional system to ride on top, and a p2p system using StarLink IP ranges would stay within Starlink without touching a ground station (well, aside from maybe bootstrapping the p2p mesh overlay network).

There were also some stale PoC apps using GunDB/SiaName to demo a webRTC p2p based chat system from several years ago that might be servicable.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 05/15/2022 09:16 am
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1524911035118825472

Quote
Starlink is now available in 32 countries around the world. People ordering from areas marked “available” will have their Starlink shipped immediately → http://starlink.com/map
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: mn on 05/15/2022 04:37 pm
That thread doesn't seem right.  Currently, I don't think Starlink users have e-mail addresses provided by SpaceX, so they can't send encrypted e-mails to one another.  Further, right now, all messages would go through a ground station.

Maybe the Ukrainians have a special set up or the thread is simplifying the explanation.

Matrix/Element/Riot is a fairly popular decentralized encrypted p2p chat system, a fork of which is currently being used within the french government (because politicians were using Telegram, which makes vulnerable to russian actions). Wouldn't be hard to fire up a closed Matrix ecosystem and use the Element client for smartphones and tablets. Starlink provides the IP transport, enabling any conventional system to ride on top, and a p2p system using StarLink IP ranges would stay within Starlink without touching a ground station (well, aside from maybe bootstrapping the p2p mesh overlay network).

There were also some stale PoC apps using GunDB/SiaName to demo a webRTC p2p based chat system from several years ago that might be servicable.

There are definitely lots of ways to communicate securely via any Internet connection including starlink.

His question was specifically about email

The linked article says:
Quote
one of the lesser known features of SpaceX's Starlink internet service, point to point email service...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/15/2022 05:29 pm
A basic misconception about email. Email is point to point between email servers. Note here is that each terminal can be its own local email server. Where no domain names are used in the designation of the server IP address but just the IP pure numerical address. Such that the need to access a DNS is eliminated. Making the communication between email servers truly point to point without any other need to communicate outside of those computers in the comm loop. Each laptop or even notepad can have an email server running on it. You do not have to have a a big centralized email server at all. In fact this was how the email protocols were originally set up and still operate to this day in the dawn of email in the DARPANET prior to the invention of the DNS wide usage that became the Internet. I knew one of the protocol developers for email services for DARPANET. (Side note this was in 1976 where both of us were working together doing assembler programming of an IBM 360.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/15/2022 06:57 pm
A basic misconception about email. Email is point to point between email servers. Note here is that each terminal can be its own local email server. Where no domain names are used in the designation of the server IP address but just the IP pure numerical address. Such that the need to access a DNS is eliminated. Making the communication between email servers truly point to point without any other need to communicate outside of those computers in the comm loop. Each laptop or even notepad can have an email server running on it. You do not have to have a a big centralized email server at all. In fact this was how the email protocols were originally set up and still operate to this day in the dawn of email in the DARPANET prior to the invention of the DNS wide usage that became the Internet. I knew one of the protocol developers for email services for DARPANET. (Side note this was in 1976 where both of us were working together doing assembler programming of an IBM 360.)
Would this work with modern 10.xxx.xxx.xxx type of addressing or only with a 'real' IP address?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/15/2022 07:13 pm
A basic misconception about email. Email is point to point between email servers. Note here is that each terminal can be its own local email server. Where no domain names are used in the designation of the server IP address but just the IP pure numerical address. Such that the need to access a DNS is eliminated. Making the communication between email servers truly point to point without any other need to communicate outside of those computers in the comm loop. Each laptop or even notepad can have an email server running on it. You do not have to have a a big centralized email server at all. In fact this was how the email protocols were originally set up and still operate to this day in the dawn of email in the DARPANET prior to the invention of the DNS wide usage that became the Internet. I knew one of the protocol developers for email services for DARPANET. (Side note this was in 1976 where both of us were working together doing assembler programming of an IBM 360.)
Would this work with modern 10.xxx.xxx.xxx type of addressing or only with a 'real' IP address?
Note it is also possible to put a modern day miniature DNS server co-located with the email server that translated names to a usable network address. Whether that is IP4 or IP6 or some other unique identifier that Starlink itself can can use without querying a DNS. The email server does not get into the network drivers functionality. Just hands the "email data file with address" to the network front end on the device to connect to the network. A little programming maybe. But likely something already existing for the Linux OS which many of these miniature implementations of DNS and email servers exist.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 05/16/2022 03:18 am
A basic misconception about email. Email is point to point between email servers. Note here is that each terminal can be its own local email server. Where no domain names are used in the designation of the server IP address but just the IP pure numerical address. Such that the need to access a DNS is eliminated. Making the communication between email servers truly point to point without any other need to communicate outside of those computers in the comm loop. Each laptop or even notepad can have an email server running on it. You do not have to have a a big centralized email server at all. In fact this was how the email protocols were originally set up and still operate to this day in the dawn of email in the DARPANET prior to the invention of the DNS wide usage that became the Internet. I knew one of the protocol developers for email services for DARPANET. (Side note this was in 1976 where both of us were working together doing assembler programming of an IBM 360.)

Well yes, back in the bad old days, when you didn't have unrestricted end-to-end access, you also had specify explicitly every email relay MTA server too.

The major difficulty here is stability of IP addresses, in the absence of a lookup system. If you are getting DHCP addresses doled out from Starlink, unless there are means to secure a reservation, the IP can change. If Elon is providing a static IP range for ukrainian MoD terminals, that's a different story (and a somewhat brittle arrangement), but there is a corollary problem that static IP's open you up denial-of-service attacks (though that would preferentially need a terminal to attack from within Starlink's IP space). An overlay system like ToR is vulnerable to initial bootstrapping, but once up can generally go on without exposing anything. There may also be additional tricks by using IPv6 address space.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/16/2022 03:10 pm
Would something along these lines be a natural element of SL for internal control and/or exception notification? There are more elegant was of doing this but SL is such a unique environment it's hard to generalize from a limited understanding.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 05/17/2022 02:08 am
Would something along these lines be a natural element of SL for internal control and/or exception notification? There are more elegant was of doing this but SL is such a unique environment it's hard to generalize from a limited understanding.

Well, if you are repurposing control frame empty space for short messaging, much like how SMS was squeezed into GSM control channels, you might be able to do something interesting. Though that's mostly to the terminal itself. You would then need to relay that somehow to the Starlink app, or the router block. If the terminal had a piezoelectric speaker, you could pump out morse code, or use an LED like an optical modem.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/17/2022 04:31 pm
Would something along these lines be a natural element of SL for internal control and/or exception notification? There are more elegant was of doing this but SL is such a unique environment it's hard to generalize from a limited understanding.

Well, if you are repurposing control frame empty space for short messaging, much like how SMS was squeezed into GSM control channels, you might be able to do something interesting. Though that's mostly to the terminal itself. You would then need to relay that somehow to the Starlink app, or the router block. If the terminal had a piezoelectric speaker, you could pump out morse code, or use an LED like an optical modem.
I was thinking SMS type of messaging. A SYSOP friend set SMS to send error codes to his bag phone back in the 80's. It took a lot of tuning before he could get an uninterrupted nights sleep.


Morse code? Where is your sense of style? EBCDIC code.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 05/18/2022 01:28 am
Would something along these lines be a natural element of SL for internal control and/or exception notification? There are more elegant was of doing this but SL is such a unique environment it's hard to generalize from a limited understanding.

Well, if you are repurposing control frame empty space for short messaging, much like how SMS was squeezed into GSM control channels, you might be able to do something interesting. Though that's mostly to the terminal itself. You would then need to relay that somehow to the Starlink app, or the router block. If the terminal had a piezoelectric speaker, you could pump out morse code, or use an LED like an optical modem.
I was thinking SMS type of messaging. A SYSOP friend set SMS to send error codes to his bag phone back in the 80's. It took a lot of tuning before he could get an uninterrupted nights sleep.


Morse code? Where is your sense of style? EBCDIC code.

If you had a smartphone mic to pic it up, yes a suitable audio modem type would work (same with using the camera to pick up LED flashes), but I was envisioning a possible human needing to do it...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/18/2022 02:37 pm
Would something along these lines be a natural element of SL for internal control and/or exception notification? There are more elegant was of doing this but SL is such a unique environment it's hard to generalize from a limited understanding.

Well, if you are repurposing control frame empty space for short messaging, much like how SMS was squeezed into GSM control channels, you might be able to do something interesting. Though that's mostly to the terminal itself. You would then need to relay that somehow to the Starlink app, or the router block. If the terminal had a piezoelectric speaker, you could pump out morse code, or use an LED like an optical modem.
I was thinking SMS type of messaging. A SYSOP friend set SMS to send error codes to his bag phone back in the 80's. It took a lot of tuning before he could get an uninterrupted nights sleep.


Morse code? Where is your sense of style? EBCDIC code.

If you had a smartphone mic to pic it up, yes a suitable audio modem type would work (same with using the camera to pick up LED flashes), but I was envisioning a possible human needing to do it...
If the message can make hardware dance why can it not be parsed out to to binary, hex or ascii in software?


Edit to add: this question ultimately traces back to the possibility of some sort of messaging system built into SL. SMS, email or a home brew.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: launchwatcher on 05/18/2022 11:17 pm
A basic misconception about email. Email is point to point between email servers. Note here is that each terminal can be its own local email server. Where no domain names are used in the designation of the server IP address but just the IP pure numerical address. Such that the need to access a DNS is eliminated. Making the communication between email servers truly point to point without any other need to communicate outside of those computers in the comm loop. Each laptop or even notepad can have an email server running on it. You do not have to have a a big centralized email server at all. In fact this was how the email protocols were originally set up and still operate to this day in the dawn of email in the DARPANET prior to the invention of the DNS wide usage that became the Internet. I knew one of the protocol developers for email services for DARPANET. (Side note this was in 1976 where both of us were working together doing assembler programming of an IBM 360.)
Would this work with modern 10.xxx.xxx.xxx type of addressing or only with a 'real' IP address?
10.xxx.xxx.xxx, or more properly 10.0.0.0/8, is one of several address blocks that are reserved for "private" use by RFC1918 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918).   If both nodes are part of the same private network (and everything is set up correctly), yes, you absolutely can do direct peer-to-peer SMTP email (and I've seen it work inside various enterprises, though it's less common now that nearly everyone uses outsourced cloud email services..).

If they are part of separate private networks, no, it wouldn't.


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/19/2022 03:15 pm
A basic misconception about email. Email is point to point between email servers. Note here is that each terminal can be its own local email server. Where no domain names are used in the designation of the server IP address but just the IP pure numerical address. Such that the need to access a DNS is eliminated. Making the communication between email servers truly point to point without any other need to communicate outside of those computers in the comm loop. Each laptop or even notepad can have an email server running on it. You do not have to have a a big centralized email server at all. In fact this was how the email protocols were originally set up and still operate to this day in the dawn of email in the DARPANET prior to the invention of the DNS wide usage that became the Internet. I knew one of the protocol developers for email services for DARPANET. (Side note this was in 1976 where both of us were working together doing assembler programming of an IBM 360.)
Would this work with modern 10.xxx.xxx.xxx type of addressing or only with a 'real' IP address?
10.xxx.xxx.xxx, or more properly 10.0.0.0/8, is one of several address blocks that are reserved for "private" use by RFC1918 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918).   If both nodes are part of the same private network (and everything is set up correctly), yes, you absolutely can do direct peer-to-peer SMTP email (and I've seen it work inside various enterprises, though it's less common now that nearly everyone uses outsourced cloud email services..).

If they are part of separate private networks, no, it wouldn't.
So it's at least possible that StarLink has a built in management notification channel of some sort that might be loosely referred to as email. Next obvious question is: short of adapting it to a military use, is there any point?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 05/19/2022 04:39 pm
So it's at least possible that StarLink has a built in management notification channel of some sort that might be loosely referred to as email. Next obvious question is: short of adapting it to a military use, is there any point?
All the systems I've used have had a diagnostics channel.  A direct channel that does not rely on DNS or any other external resource is useful to isolate problems.  Read the id off the back of one end of the link and ping it from the other end.  IF the ping works you've ruled out a boatload of low level problems.  Was also useful during setup if the tech at one end had no phone coverage.

As an aside this channel tends to get added early in the design process to do some minimal tests and then gets left in even if it's never used by anybody else.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/19/2022 04:57 pm
So it's at least possible that StarLink has a built in management notification channel of some sort that might be loosely referred to as email. Next obvious question is: short of adapting it to a military use, is there any point?
All the systems I've used have had a diagnostics channel.  A direct channel that does not rely on DNS or any other external resource is useful to isolate problems.  Read the id off the back of one end of the link and ping it from the other end.  IF the ping works you've ruled out a boatload of low level problems.  Was also useful during setup if the tech at one end had no phone coverage.

As an aside this channel tends to get added early in the design process to do some minimal tests and then gets left in even if it's never used by anybody else.
Yeah, they all have a back channel of some sort at some level: that's where the term "back channel" came from.  However, for any long-haul or radio link, the back channel is still multiplexed at some level with the data channels. It can be FDM multiplexed (i.e., a different radio frequency, used in the olden days), TDM multiplexed (SONET, ISDN, SS7, traditional T1,...), really wonky muxing in TDMA systems (LTE, etc.), stat muxed at "layer 2" (Ethernet et. al), or muxed at the IP layer (separate subnet), but at the lowest level it's still sharing the physical layer.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/20/2022 12:24 am
So it's at least possible that StarLink has a built in management notification channel of some sort that might be loosely referred to as email. Next obvious question is: short of adapting it to a military use, is there any point?
All the systems I've used have had a diagnostics channel.  A direct channel that does not rely on DNS or any other external resource is useful to isolate problems.  Read the id off the back of one end of the link and ping it from the other end.  IF the ping works you've ruled out a boatload of low level problems.  Was also useful during setup if the tech at one end had no phone coverage.

As an aside this channel tends to get added early in the design process to do some minimal tests and then gets left in even if it's never used by anybody else.
Yeah, they all have a back channel of some sort at some level: that's where the term "back channel" came from.  However, for any long-haul or radio link, the back channel is still multiplexed at some level with the data channels. It can be FDM multiplexed (i.e., a different radio frequency, used in the olden days), TDM multiplexed (SONET, ISDN, SS7, traditional T1,...), really wonky muxing in TDMA systems (LTE, etc.), stat muxed at "layer 2" (Ethernet et. al), or muxed at the IP layer (separate subnet), but at the lowest level it's still sharing the physical layer.
Agree with that. The most likely answer for the "Starlink email" thing is the guy doesn't really know what he's talking about and may be filling in gaps...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/20/2022 02:57 pm
So it's at least possible that StarLink has a built in management notification channel of some sort that might be loosely referred to as email. Next obvious question is: short of adapting it to a military use, is there any point?
All the systems I've used have had a diagnostics channel.  A direct channel that does not rely on DNS or any other external resource is useful to isolate problems.  Read the id off the back of one end of the link and ping it from the other end.  IF the ping works you've ruled out a boatload of low level problems.  Was also useful during setup if the tech at one end had no phone coverage.

As an aside this channel tends to get added early in the design process to do some minimal tests and then gets left in even if it's never used by anybody else.
Yeah, they all have a back channel of some sort at some level: that's where the term "back channel" came from.  However, for any long-haul or radio link, the back channel is still multiplexed at some level with the data channels. It can be FDM multiplexed (i.e., a different radio frequency, used in the olden days), TDM multiplexed (SONET, ISDN, SS7, traditional T1,...), really wonky muxing in TDMA systems (LTE, etc.), stat muxed at "layer 2" (Ethernet et. al), or muxed at the IP layer (separate subnet), but at the lowest level it's still sharing the physical layer.
Agree with that. The most likely answer for the "Starlink email" thing is the guy doesn't really know what he's talking about and may be filling in gaps...
That's my take. Don't dump on 'em for being terminology challenged. Nobody knows everything and he did get across the idea of built in comms - if our sand castle concepts are right.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gongora on 05/23/2022 12:29 am
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1528529219340447745

Quote
SpaceX have confirmed that current Starlink design no longer has  visors, but does have improved coatings. This is consistent with obs showing a typical 0.5 mag brightness increase of the new sats rel to visorsats. Talk at  http://youtube.com/watch?v=MNc5yCYth5E&t=1715s Slides
https://planet4589.org/astro/starsim/fas.pdf
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 05/23/2022 05:14 pm
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1528529219340447745

The part about mirror system is really interesting:

Quote from: slide #9
Visors vs. Specular Nadir Surfaces

• Visors block incident light to chassis while also needing to be black to avoid adverse scatter of their own
• Making the chassis nadir specular can be more efficient for brightness and has many other design advantages
    • A purely specular surface will be invisible to observers on earth
• SpaceX has implemented a space stable, dielectric mirror sticker using commercially available subcomponents and processes
• Continuously investigating and improving scatter properties with main challenges being reducing intrinsic defects, surface roughness, and applying UV mitigation coatings
    • SpaceX Gen1 to Gen2 dielectric mirrors have 50 times lower diffuse scatter
    • Conops can also bias specular reflection further from Earth

Unfortunately the presenter went over the specular nadir mirror very quickly and nobody asked about it in Q&A. It's not clear to me that this system is currently implemented on all recent Gen1 satellites or it's something they're still testing.


On a separate subject, he did mention in the Q&A that they intend to lower the injection orbit from 300km again (it was raised to 300km after solar storm caused loss of satellites), since they implemented some GNC changes to better navigate in lower orbit (denser atmosphere). And they're also working with NOAA and NASA to get better atmosphere models, and use the friction measures from Starlink to better calibrate these models.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 05/26/2022 03:22 pm
Finally some Gen2 news:

Starlink 2 is about 7m long and weighs 1.25t

This episode is kind of meh on technical details, except the Starlink Gen2 part, which is gigantic news.

He also said:
1. They already produced the first Gen2 satellite, and it's on site.
2. Gen2 satellite is close to an order of magnitude more capable than Gen1 (measured by "useful bits of data" per satellite)
3. User terminals will work with both Gen1 and Gen2 (already known but good to have this confirmed)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 05/26/2022 03:54 pm
So that's like 200Gbps per satellite. Nice.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 05/26/2022 06:44 pm
Finally some Gen2 news:

Starlink 2 is about 7m long and weighs 1.25t

This episode is kind of meh on technical details, except the Starlink Gen2 part, which is gigantic news.

He also said:
1. They already produced the first Gen2 satellite, and it's on site.
2. Gen2 satellite is close to an order of magnitude more capable than Gen1 (measured by "useful bits of data" per satellite)
3. User terminals will work with both Gen1 and Gen2 (already known but good to have this confirmed)

Questions:

* Is it correct that Gen2 sats haven't launched yet?   Are they exclusively planned for Starship?

(Sorry, if this is already answered somewhere)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/26/2022 07:21 pm
Finally some Gen2 news:

Starlink 2 is about 7m long and weighs 1.25t

This episode is kind of meh on technical details, except the Starlink Gen2 part, which is gigantic news.

He also said:
1. They already produced the first Gen2 satellite, and it's on site.
2. Gen2 satellite is close to an order of magnitude more capable than Gen1 (measured by "useful bits of data" per satellite)
3. User terminals will work with both Gen1 and Gen2 (already known but good to have this confirmed)

Questions:

* Is it correct that Gen2 sats haven't launched yet?   Are they exclusively planned for Starship?

(Sorry, if this is already answered somewhere)

Yes, there have been no V2 satellites launched.  Elon said in the video they have one on site at Starbase (perhaps it was more than one).  Maybe it's a physical demo and not functional. 

I was surprised by the 1.25 ton number, that is a big bird.  They must be preparing for a very high number of deployment flights.  The data throughput will be insane though.

It's going to be very exciting to watch over the next couple of years.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/26/2022 07:32 pm
* Is it correct that Gen2 sats haven't launched yet?   Are they exclusively planned for Starship?

(Sorry, if this is already answered somewhere)

Yes, this was covered by Musk.  The Gen2s are 7 meters wide and therefore the F9 is incapable of carrying them.

It's interesting that in the proceedings before the FCC, SpaceX has studiously avoided giving dimensions and mass for the Gen2 sats.  But in broad strokes, Musk has let the cat out of the bag.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ZachF on 05/26/2022 07:49 pm
So that's like 200Gbps per satellite. Nice.

That also means that each Starship launch will be launching the equivalent throughput of a dozen or more Viasat-3s….
 :o
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: russianhalo117 on 05/26/2022 08:06 pm
* Is it correct that Gen2 sats haven't launched yet?   Are they exclusively planned for Starship?

(Sorry, if this is already answered somewhere)

Yes, this was covered by Musk.  The Gen2s are 7 meters wide and therefore the F9 is incapable of carrying them.

It's interesting that in the proceedings before the FCC, SpaceX has studiously avoided giving dimensions and mass for the Gen2 sats.  But in broad strokes, Musk has let the cat out of the bag.
7m length + 2 × 3.5m width = 7m²
3.5m width can fit on PLF if 7m length parallels the PLF. Now if each gen 2 sat has a length and width of 7m  by 7m = 7m² then no they cannot fit. To date I have only seen a length of 7m mentioned and not a width of 7m.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/26/2022 08:48 pm


Finally some Gen2 news:

Starlink 2 is about 7m long and weighs 1.25t

This episode is kind of meh on technical details, except the Starlink Gen2 part, which is gigantic news.

He also said:
1. They already produced the first Gen2 satellite, and it's on site.
2. Gen2 satellite is close to an order of magnitude more capable than Gen1 (measured by "useful bits of data" per satellite)
3. User terminals will work with both Gen1 and Gen2 (already known but good to have this confirmed)

Questions:

* Is it correct that Gen2 sats haven't launched yet?   Are they exclusively planned for Starship?

(Sorry, if this is already answered somewhere)

Yes, there have been no V2 satellites launched. 

Without SS they have no means of placing one in orbit.




Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: abaddon on 05/26/2022 09:01 pm
* Is it correct that Gen2 sats haven't launched yet?   Are they exclusively planned for Starship?

(Sorry, if this is already answered somewhere)

Yes, this was covered by Musk.  The Gen2s are 7 meters wide and therefore the F9 is incapable of carrying them.

It's interesting that in the proceedings before the FCC, SpaceX has studiously avoided giving dimensions and mass for the Gen2 sats.  But in broad strokes, Musk has let the cat out of the bag.
7m length + 2 × 3.5m width = 7m²
3.5m width can fit on PLF if 7m length parallels the PLF. Now if each gen 2 sat has a length and width of 7m  by 7m = 7m² then no they cannot fit. To date I have only seen a length of 7m mentioned and not a width of 7m.
They probably aren't designed to launch vertically.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 05/26/2022 10:06 pm
Finally some Gen2 news:
Starlink 2 is about 7m long and weighs 1.25

a feature of generation 2 is the use of the E band of 81..86 GHz for Uplink from Earth, that is, 2 times more than it is now in Ka, but in order to increase the throughput not by 3 times, but by 10, each satellite needs to work not with 1, but with at least 3, but most likely 4 gateways. that is, the satellite must have up to 8 Ka band antennas and 8 E band antennas. All this requires a significant increase in size in order to place them so that they do not block the visibility of each other ..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 05/27/2022 01:18 am
* Is it correct that Gen2 sats haven't launched yet?   Are they exclusively planned for Starship?

(Sorry, if this is already answered somewhere)

Yes, this was covered by Musk.  The Gen2s are 7 meters wide and therefore the F9 is incapable of carrying them.

It's interesting that in the proceedings before the FCC, SpaceX has studiously avoided giving dimensions and mass for the Gen2 sats.  But in broad strokes, Musk has let the cat out of the bag.
I'd guess that meant 7m solar arrays, which could be stowed for launch.
I doubt it, as vsatman points out - higher throughput requires more antennas. Can't be anything else because the technology base between v1.5 and v2 didn't change that much (and if it did, they'd redesign within the same space envelope).

7m length + 2 × 3.5m width = 7m²
3.5m width can fit on PLF if 7m length parallels the PLF. Now if each gen 2 sat has a length and width of 7m  by 7m = 7m² then no they cannot fit. To date I have only seen a length of 7m mentioned and not a width of 7m.

Look at the size of the deployment door on Ship 24. I would assume it's sized to the smaller dimension (length or width) of the sats. 
But, the door *could* be 7m across. So *maybe* 7m square?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: bstrong on 05/27/2022 01:33 am
7m length + 2 × 3.5m width = 7m²
3.5m width can fit on PLF if 7m length parallels the PLF. Now if each gen 2 sat has a length and width of 7m  by 7m = 7m² then no they cannot fit. To date I have only seen a length of 7m mentioned and not a width of 7m.

Look at the size of the deployment door on Ship 24. I would assume it's sized to the smaller dimension (length or width) of the sats. 
But, the door *could* be 7m across. So *maybe* 7m square?

The problem with 7m x 7m is that they would no longer be road transportable. And not coincidentally, anything road transportable in bulk from Seattle to Texas will likely fit in an F9 fairing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 05/27/2022 01:44 am
The problem with 7m x 7m is that they would no longer be road transportable. And not coincidentally, anything road transportable in bulk from Seattle to Texas will likely fit in an F9 fairing.
Good point.
US road maximum height clearance seems to be 4.2m or so. That'd put the maximum around 7m (length) x 3-4m  .
Elon explicitely said in the ED video that it's impossible to fit in F9 fairing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gongora on 05/27/2022 01:48 am
7m x 7m sats wouldn't even fit in a 9m fairing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 05/27/2022 01:58 am
Yeah, 7m is surprisingly large, advertised Starship fairing envelope is 8m diameter, straight section is 8m high. If this is a flat satellite, long side 7m, it means the short side can't exceed 3.9m, otherwise it won't fit flat inside the fairing. And if short side is 3.9m, it means you can only fit one satellite per level, it's hard to see how they can fit 100 inside the 8m high section if they can't fit two side by side.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 05/27/2022 02:06 am
It's interesting that in the proceedings before the FCC, SpaceX has studiously avoided giving dimensions and mass for the Gen2 sats.  But in broad strokes, Musk has let the cat out of the bag.

Yep, although if they plan to do some fit check using the satellite on site (maybe involving the mystery box?), it's going to be hard to keep the size of the satellite under wraps for much longer anyway.


I'd guess that meant 7m solar arrays, which could be stowed for launch.

The estimate for Gen1 satellite's solar array (https://lilibots.blogspot.com/2020/04/starlink-satellite-dimension-estimates.html) is 10 meters long fully extended. Can't see how Gen2 can have a smaller array.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 05/27/2022 02:31 am
Yeah, 7m is surprising large, advertised Starship fairing envelope is 8m diameter, straight section is 8m high. If this is a flat satellite, long side 7m, it means the short side can't exceed 3.87m, otherwise it won't fit flat inside the fairing. And if short side is 3.87m, it means you can only fit one satellite per level, it's hard to see how they can fit 100 inside the 8m high section if they can only put one per level.
Starlink v1 is around 3.2m x 1.6m x 20 cm. Maximum stacking on F9 was 60 (for v1). That's two per level.
In that case, to stack 100, two levels, would mean:
7m x 1.8m (ish) x 18 cm. Ie, it'd be about twice as big.
BUT - v1.5 masses about 300 kg, v2 1250kg. That's 4times as much. Assuming the same density, it should be 6.4 x 3.2m.

Weird.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: groknull on 05/27/2022 02:59 am
Yeah, 7m is surprising large, advertised Starship fairing envelope is 8m diameter, straight section is 8m high. If this is a flat satellite, long side 7m, it means the short side can't exceed 3.87m, otherwise it won't fit flat inside the fairing. And if short side is 3.87m, it means you can only fit one satellite per level, it's hard to see how they can fit 100 inside the 8m high section if they can only put one per level.
Starlink v1 is around 3.2m x 1.6m x 20 cm. Maximum stacking on F9 was 60 (for v1). That's two per level.
In that case, to stack 100, two levels, would mean:
7m x 1.8m (ish) x 18 cm. Ie, it'd be about twice as big.
BUT - v1.5 masses about 300 kg, v2 1250kg. That's 4times as much. Assuming the same density, it should be 6.4 x 3.2m.

Weird.

7m x 7m won't fit assuming square corners.  Clipping the corners does offer a solution.

Getting to about 8m diagonal requires clipping a little over 1.3m off all four corners.  This leaves an (uneven) octagon 7m on orthogonal axes and 8m on the diagonal.

Slicing that octagon down the middle results in 7m x 3.5m rectangles with two clipped corners each.

JayWee's estimate of 6.4m x 3.2m gives 20.48m^2 planform area.

7m x 3.5m is 24.5m^2.  Minus 1.4m clipped corners gives 22.54m^2.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 05/27/2022 03:12 am
Yeah, 7m is surprising large, advertised Starship fairing envelope is 8m diameter, straight section is 8m high. If this is a flat satellite, long side 7m, it means the short side can't exceed 3.87m, otherwise it won't fit flat inside the fairing. And if short side is 3.87m, it means you can only fit one satellite per level, it's hard to see how they can fit 100 inside the 8m high section if they can only put one per level.
Starlink v1 is around 3.2m x 1.6m x 20 cm. Maximum stacking on F9 was 60 (for v1). That's two per level.
In that case, to stack 100, two levels, would mean:
7m x 1.8m (ish) x 18 cm. Ie, it'd be about twice as big.
BUT - v1.5 masses about 300 kg, v2 1250kg. That's 4times as much. Assuming the same density, it should be 6.4 x 3.2m.

Weird.

7m x 7m won't fit assuming square corners.  Clipping the corners does offer a solution.

Getting to about 8m diagonal requires clipping a little over 1.3m off all four corners.  This leaves an (uneven) octagon 7m on orthogonal axes and 8m on the diagonal.

Slicing that octagon down the middle results in 7m x 3.5m rectangles with two clipped corners each.

JayWee's estimate of 6.4m x 3.2m gives 20.48m^2 planform area.

7m x 3.5m is 24.5m^2.  Minus 1.4m clipped corners gives 22.54m^2.

In other words we shouldn't assume the satellite is a rectangle, they need to get as close to half a disk as possible. The full disk of 8m diameter has an area of 50 m^2, which is 10x the Gen1 area, so it's enough to fit two Gen2 if each one is 5x the Gen1, just need to use all available areas.

They'll probably eject the entire disk of a pair of Gen2 together, then the two separates after leaving the ship.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: russianhalo117 on 05/27/2022 03:23 am
* Is it correct that Gen2 sats haven't launched yet?   Are they exclusively planned for Starship?

(Sorry, if this is already answered somewhere)

Yes, this was covered by Musk.  The Gen2s are 7 meters wide and therefore the F9 is incapable of carrying them.

It's interesting that in the proceedings before the FCC, SpaceX has studiously avoided giving dimensions and mass for the Gen2 sats.  But in broad strokes, Musk has let the cat out of the bag.
I'd guess that meant 7m solar arrays, which could be stowed for launch.
That would be deployed height. Only what has been 'released' is the presumed to be the stowed dimensions and the rest are implied.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/27/2022 12:29 pm
.....
Without SS they have no means of placing one in orbit.
.....
In theory the Falcon payload fairing can hold a horizontal stack of about a dozen 7 meter high by 3.5 meter wide Starlink v2 satcoms. Of course that makes deploying the v2 problematic with such a low deployment rate per launch with the Falcon 9.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/27/2022 06:15 pm
.....
Without SS they have no means of placing one in orbit.
.....
In theory the Falcon payload fairing can hold a horizontal stack of about a dozen 7 meter high by 3.5 meter wide Starlink v2 satcoms. Of course that makes deploying the v2 problematic with such a low deployment rate per launch with the Falcon 9.
Now you need to modify satellites to handle launch loads on totally different plane. Best just wait for LV they are designed for.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/27/2022 06:18 pm
7m length + 2 × 3.5m width = 7m²
3.5m width can fit on PLF if 7m length parallels the PLF. Now if each gen 2 sat has a length and width of 7m  by 7m = 7m² then no they cannot fit. To date I have only seen a length of 7m mentioned and not a width of 7m.

Look at the size of the deployment door on Ship 24. I would assume it's sized to the smaller dimension (length or width) of the sats. 
But, the door *could* be 7m across. So *maybe* 7m square?

The problem with 7m x 7m is that they would no longer be road transportable. And not coincidentally, anything road transportable in bulk from Seattle to Texas will likely fit in an F9 fairing.
Could do some final assembly near launch site.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/27/2022 06:43 pm
7m length + 2 × 3.5m width = 7m²
3.5m width can fit on PLF if 7m length parallels the PLF. Now if each gen 2 sat has a length and width of 7m  by 7m = 7m² then no they cannot fit. To date I have only seen a length of 7m mentioned and not a width of 7m.

Look at the size of the deployment door on Ship 24. I would assume it's sized to the smaller dimension (length or width) of the sats. 
But, the door *could* be 7m across. So *maybe* 7m square?

The problem with 7m x 7m is that they would no longer be road transportable. And not coincidentally, anything road transportable in bulk from Seattle to Texas will likely fit in an F9 fairing.
Could do some final assembly near launch site.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk



Upon hearing the V2 size, I started to think we should keep an eye out for a Starlink assembly facility near CCSFB/KSC. 

That's going to be a lot of tonnage in a large form factor to move across the country.  But SpaceX seems to be able to solve these problems.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 05/27/2022 07:11 pm
Upon hearing the V2 size, I started to think we should keep an eye out for a Starlink assembly facility near CCSFB/KSC. 

That's going to be a lot of tonnage in a large form factor to move across the country.  But SpaceX seems to be able to solve these problems.
Assuming 7x3.5x0.2m envelope, a truck can carry about 13. With one launch per week, that's 8 truck trailers per week. Doable.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tomness on 05/27/2022 09:13 pm
Upon hearing the V2 size, I started to think we should keep an eye out for a Starlink assembly facility near CCSFB/KSC. 

That's going to be a lot of tonnage in a large form factor to move across the country.  But SpaceX seems to be able to solve these problems.
Assuming 7x3.5x0.2m envelope, a truck can carry about 13. With one launch per week, that's 8 truck trailers per week. Doable.

Specially if they are doing Tesla Semi's with Platooning two trucks behind the lead truck.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: meekGee on 05/27/2022 10:14 pm
Yeah, 7m is surprising large, advertised Starship fairing envelope is 8m diameter, straight section is 8m high. If this is a flat satellite, long side 7m, it means the short side can't exceed 3.87m, otherwise it won't fit flat inside the fairing. And if short side is 3.87m, it means you can only fit one satellite per level, it's hard to see how they can fit 100 inside the 8m high section if they can only put one per level.
Starlink v1 is around 3.2m x 1.6m x 20 cm. Maximum stacking on F9 was 60 (for v1). That's two per level.
In that case, to stack 100, two levels, would mean:
7m x 1.8m (ish) x 18 cm. Ie, it'd be about twice as big.
BUT - v1.5 masses about 300 kg, v2 1250kg. That's 4times as much. Assuming the same density, it should be 6.4 x 3.2m.

Weird.

7m x 7m won't fit assuming square corners.  Clipping the corners does offer a solution.

Getting to about 8m diagonal requires clipping a little over 1.3m off all four corners.  This leaves an (uneven) octagon 7m on orthogonal axes and 8m on the diagonal.

Slicing that octagon down the middle results in 7m x 3.5m rectangles with two clipped corners each.

JayWee's estimate of 6.4m x 3.2m gives 20.48m^2 planform area.

7m x 3.5m is 24.5m^2.  Minus 1.4m clipped corners gives 22.54m^2.

In other words we shouldn't assume the satellite is a rectangle, they need to get as close to half a disk as possible. The full disk of 8m diameter has an area of 50 m^2, which is 10x the Gen1 area, so it's enough to fit two Gen2 if each one is 5x the Gen1, just need to use all available areas.

They'll probably eject the entire disk of a pair of Gen2 together, then the two separates after leaving the ship.

Won't that make the door impossibly large?  Even ejecting a half-disk is difficult, but only requires a quarter-circumference door.  And if you don't want to rotate them, you'll need two such doors.  Scary stuff, structurally.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 05/28/2022 01:45 pm
Won't that make the door impossibly large?  Even ejecting a half-disk is difficult, but only requires a quarter-circumference door.  And if you don't want to rotate them, you'll need two such doors.  Scary stuff, structurally.

Ship 24's payload bay door is very wide, I didn't find a view that is directly in front, but just from the view from this tweet:

https://twitter.com/starshipgazer/status/1529891904611135510

And do a crude pixel count, it's at least 7.2m wide.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/28/2022 06:46 pm
Upon hearing the V2 size, I started to think we should keep an eye out for a Starlink assembly facility near CCSFB/KSC. 

That's going to be a lot of tonnage in a large form factor to move across the country.  But SpaceX seems to be able to solve these problems.
Assuming 7x3.5x0.2m envelope, a truck can carry about 13. With one launch per week, that's 8 truck trailers per week. Doable.
Absolutely doable but not the best solution. Lay them flat and they need to do overdimentional. At least one chase car, some states require a lead car too. Tip them to a diagonal and the 13'6" limit is exceeded quickly and the loading gets complex.


Overdimensional loads call for stopping at ALL scale houses for a paperwork check. The route needs to be approved on a state by state basis with a routing schedule with a time variance that I'm not familiar with. Must be shut down from dusk to dawn. Most overdimentional carriers, and their chase cars shut down at motels instead of messing with truck stops and rest areas. When fueling they park, drop the trailer, hit the fuel lane then hook up again.


Three-four years ago you could figure $4/mile. Probably higher now not even counting the fuel surcharge. If special racks are used, like wind turbine blade haulers, figure the costs on a round trip basis. Round trip from the NW to BC, w/one way chase cars, permits and fuel surcharge be ~$35k per truck. Run all the trucks together and there's some savings on the chase cars but it gets hard to find motels that can handle that rodeo.


Add in the cost of labor on the west coast and the capital investment for a Texas factory gets covered very quickly.


Yes, I know this is only a largish rounding error in total launch costs but it's low hanging savings fruit.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/28/2022 06:51 pm
Upon hearing the V2 size, I started to think we should keep an eye out for a Starlink assembly facility near CCSFB/KSC. 

That's going to be a lot of tonnage in a large form factor to move across the country.  But SpaceX seems to be able to solve these problems.
Assuming 7x3.5x0.2m envelope, a truck can carry about 13. With one launch per week, that's 8 truck trailers per week. Doable.

Specially if they are doing Tesla Semi's with Platooning two trucks behind the lead truck.
Things have probably changed since I got out of the business but 4 years ago platooning was not legal in most states and where it was legal, it was a test project. Gets the driver a "following too close" ticket.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 05/28/2022 08:06 pm
Upon hearing the V2 size, I started to think we should keep an eye out for a Starlink assembly facility near CCSFB/KSC. 

That's going to be a lot of tonnage in a large form factor to move across the country.  But SpaceX seems to be able to solve these problems.
Assuming 7x3.5x0.2m envelope, a truck can carry about 13. With one launch per week, that's 8 truck trailers per week. Doable.
Absolutely doable but not the best solution. Lay them flat and they need to do overdimentional. At least one chase car, some states require a lead car too. Tip them to a diagonal and the 13'6" (4.11m) limit is exceeded quickly and the loading gets complex.
I was thinking vertical on a very-low-bed trailer. Something like https://www.fleetequip.com/fckimages/pages/fontaine-trailer/Fontaine-Renegade-LX40-Lowboy-2.jpg
With bed heigth of 50.8 cm, Starlink 3.5m, it'd leave 10 cm for packaging.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/29/2022 09:41 am
Presuming the Starlink v2 comsat have dimensions of 7 x 3.4 x 0.2 meters in orbit.

Would it make sense to hinged them into a travel dimension of 7m x 1.7 x 0.5 meters. So they can stacked 5 of them vertically on a rack that can be rolled into a standard semi-tractor trailer?

It will take more semi trips, but no oversize road restrictions. Maybe even double trailer semis.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/29/2022 04:07 pm
Upon hearing the V2 size, I started to think we should keep an eye out for a Starlink assembly facility near CCSFB/KSC. 

That's going to be a lot of tonnage in a large form factor to move across the country.  But SpaceX seems to be able to solve these problems.
Assuming 7x3.5x0.2m envelope, a truck can carry about 13. With one launch per week, that's 8 truck trailers per week. Doable.
Absolutely doable but not the best solution. Lay them flat and they need to do overdimentional. At least one chase car, some states require a lead car too. Tip them to a diagonal and the 13'6" (4.11m) limit is exceeded quickly and the loading gets complex.
I was thinking vertical on a very-low-bed trailer. Something like https://www.fleetequip.com/fckimages/pages/fontaine-trailer/Fontaine-Renegade-LX40-Lowboy-2.jpg (https://www.fleetequip.com/fckimages/pages/fontaine-trailer/Fontaine-Renegade-LX40-Lowboy-2.jpg)
With bed heigth of 50.8 cm, Starlink 3.5m, it'd leave 10 cm for packaging.
You're right. I did just a glance at the dimensions and figured it'd either not work or they'd have to be tipped.


BTW, that's called a lowboy trailer. The gooseneck comes off and heavy equipment can be driven right on for shipment. Next up is a drop deck that has a step in the front and 17" tires that allow the deck to be dropped but not as far as a lowboy. Lowboy also has 17" tires. Everyday type trailers have 22" and sometimes 24" tires.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/29/2022 04:32 pm
Presuming the Starlink v2 comsat have dimensions of 7 x 3.4 x 0.2 meters in orbit.

Would it make sense to hinged them into a travel dimension of 7m x 1.7 x 0.5 meters. So they can stacked 5 of them vertically on a rack that can be rolled into a standard semi-tractor trailer?

It will take more semi trips, but no oversize road restrictions. Maybe even double trailer semis.
Hinging always seems to add mass and complexity. JayWee's idea can be made to work with careful packaging.


More truck lore: Doubles, and in some states triples are a state by state thing. Usually limited to 'pup' trailers of 28' or 32' feet. In Kansas you can run triple pups or double 48'. Most 'Dry Van' (box) trailers today are 53', but everything in Texas is bigger. They allow 57'.


Also doubles and triples are used almost or exclusively for LTL (Less Than Truckload). Think FedEx, UPS, Yellow, Saia and a few others. These carriers operate from cross dock yards (in one side and out the other) that are always less than one days driving apart so you almost never see them in truck stops. Some few drive team and can go far.


Backing is part skill and part art. I got pretty decent at it. Some few gifted (or twisted, take your pick) actually get decent at backing a double. LTL yards have pull throughs where one (or two) trailers can be dropped and one put in a dock or a parking slot for further pickup and movement.


BTW, we called Multi's 'wiggle wagons'.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/29/2022 09:40 pm
Two stacks of 10 each of Gen2 would max out a trucks max payload hauling weight. 2 stacks would be ~50' so it would fit on 1 trailer. So at best is to use a single trailer carrying 2 stacks or ~20 sats. That would be ~25 metric tons of sats.

ADDED: A BTW those 20 sats would have a combined worth of >$6M. Another note is that a full F9 load of Gen1 sats would fit on a single truck. And their total combined worth is for 53 sats at >$16M.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 05/30/2022 11:58 pm
Two stacks of 10 each of Gen2 would max out a trucks max payload hauling weight. 2 stacks would be ~50' so it would fit on 1 trailer. So at best is to use a single trailer carrying 2 stacks or ~20 sats. That would be ~25 metric tons of sats.

ADDED: A BTW those 20 sats would have a combined worth of >$6M. Another note is that a full F9 load of Gen1 sats would fit on a single truck. And their total combined worth is for 53 sats at >$16M.
25metric tons is about 55,000 lb. Max gross without special permits is 80,000 lb. My tractor was heavy, ~20,000 lb. I think it was the hot tub or the 300 gal. tanks.  A freightliner Cascadia with 2 100 gallon tanks and sleeper spec'd as a company truck might be 16,000 lb. My max load with a dry van of 14,000 lb was ~46,000 lb. A flatbed would weigh somewhere around 1,000 lb less than the dryvan. So bottom line, a company flatbed could haul 51,000 lb or 23.2 mt. An owner operator might haul 1-2 metric tons less.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: SDSmith on 05/31/2022 04:08 pm
Two stacks of 10 each of Gen2 would max out a trucks max payload hauling weight. 2 stacks would be ~50' so it would fit on 1 trailer. So at best is to use a single trailer carrying 2 stacks or ~20 sats. That would be ~25 metric tons of sats.

ADDED: A BTW those 20 sats would have a combined worth of >$6M. Another note is that a full F9 load of Gen1 sats would fit on a single truck. And their total combined worth is for 53 sats at >$16M.
25metric tons is about 55,000 lb. Max gross without special permits is 80,000 lb. My tractor was heavy, ~20,000 lb. I think it was the hot tub or the 300 gal. tanks.  A freightliner Cascadia with 2 100 gallon tanks and sleeper spec'd as a company truck might be 16,000 lb. My max load with a dry van of 14,000 lb was ~46,000 lb. A flatbed would weigh somewhere around 1,000 lb less than the dryvan. So bottom line, a company flatbed could haul 51,000 lb or 23.2 mt. An owner operator might haul 1-2 metric tons less.
I think that the satellites will not be sitting naked on the trailer but will be in an environmentally controlled box to prevent contamination. That might reduce the number of satellites carried.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 05/31/2022 08:06 pm
7m long satellites really don’t pack well into a 9m  diameter circle.  I think it’s much more likely we will see a shorter bus section with fold out antenna arrays that deploy to give a 7m length. That might make a slight difference to transport issues.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/31/2022 08:49 pm
7m long satellites really don’t pack well into a 9m  diameter circle.  I think it’s much more likely we will see a shorter bus section with fold out antenna arrays that deploy to give a 7m length. That might make a slight difference to transport issues.

I think we could see two nipped corners to help fit and fill the 9 meter diameter.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 06/01/2022 08:44 am
So the greatly expanded bandwidth of the Gen2 sats significantly impacts the financial viability of the Starlink business case.

A figure of 8 times more bandwidth per sat is being bandied about on Twitter (probably based on Elon’s “almost an order of magnitude more powerful” comment). Let’s go with that.

Taking a simplistic approach for illustrative purposes - We know Starlink currently has around 400,000 users worldwide - with still only about half its initial 4400 satellites in operation. We also know that the current user base is heavily skewed to North American users, with Starlink yet to be licensed in much of the world.

So while North American bandwidth capacity may be close to maxed out at the moment, most of the rest of the world lies largely untapped, or is at least well below saturation levels.

So, with ~2000 operational Gen 1 sats, they have ~400k users. If licensing is eventually granted everywhere outside of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and a few other politically unfriendly nations, the current ~2000 sats could probably support at least twice the current 400k users - so around 800k quite easily. (This just by adding users outside the United States).

Now double that number to the full 4400 Gen 1 constellation and you get to perhaps 1.6 million customers.

If all of the 4400 Gen 1 sats are then replaced by Gen 2 sats with 8 times the bandwidth, that’s sufficient bandwidth to go from 1.6 million users to around 13 million users. Theoretically at least.

Importantly, this would be with only 4400 Gen 2 sats in orbit.

And at about $1500 revenue per customer per year, that gets them to $20B annual revenue from Starlink. And that’s before moving to the proposed 12,000 sat future network.

Gen 2 sats change everything. The entire business case goes from marginal to a slam dunk.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/02/2022 02:58 am
Yup, although I'm pretty sure they'll need to add bandwidth disproportional to the additional revenue they'll get. Especially in less developed nations. But yeah, either way, once Starlink 2 is launching and they continue to scale out until its capacity is reached, Starlink revenue will dwarf their other revenue streams.

I've heard people poo-poo the idea that SpaceX could have as much revenue as a company like Comcast, which has annual revenue of over $100 billion given 30 million subscribers. But the idea that Starlink, as fully envisioned, definitely couldn't get there is pretty absurd. Starlink's service is much more valuable than Comcast's for a given bandwidth given the ability to use it in rural areas and even take it with you, use on airliners, ships, military, remote sites, etc. And Comcast is basically a US company whereas Starlink is (increasingly) global. In a growing global economy, being able to serve more than the 1/20th of the world's population that lives in the US is how you potentially become a 12 or maybe even 13 figure value company (Comcast is worth $200B).

Much of this growth is priced in already, with SpaceX worth $125 billion or so, but still.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 06/02/2022 07:03 am
Yup, although I'm pretty sure they'll need to add bandwidth disproportional to the additional revenue they'll get. Especially in less developed nations. But yeah, either way, once Starlink 2 is launching and they continue to scale out until its capacity is reached, Starlink revenue will dwarf their other revenue streams.

I've heard people poo-poo the idea that SpaceX could have as much revenue as a company like Comcast, which has annual revenue of over $100 billion given 30 million subscribers. But the idea that Starlink, as fully envisioned, definitely couldn't get there is pretty absurd. Starlink's service is much more valuable than Comcast's for a given bandwidth given the ability to use it in rural areas and even take it with you, use on airliners, ships, military, remote sites, etc. And Comcast is basically a US company whereas Starlink is (increasingly) global. In a growing global economy, being able to serve more than the 1/20th of the world's population that lives in the US is how you potentially become a 12 or maybe even 13 figure value company (Comcast is worth $200B).

Much of this growth is priced in already, with SpaceX worth $125 billion or so, but still.

Agree with all of the above.

The main point for me is that the capacity limitation per Starlink “cell” has been a key constraint used by critics like Tim Farrar to argue that the Starlink business model is not viable.

Increasing the bandwidth per satellite by a factor of 8 instantaneously invalidates that argument.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: waveney on 06/02/2022 10:26 am
One thing to note, is that doubling the bandwidth more than doubles the number of users any system can handle.  What the actual numbers are is difficult to know with out more detailed data.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/02/2022 12:12 pm
Having to limit the number of users due to not enough bandwidth is a good problem to have. It means they have more customers than they can serve. Businesses fail when they do not have enough customers.

That said,  Comcast as an example offers more than internet,  so it's revenue will be much higher than a pure internet provider. Starlink maybe $40 - $50 billion a year for the same 30 million users base?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/02/2022 12:25 pm
Having to limit the number of users due to not enough bandwidth is a good problem to have. It means they have more customers than they can serve. Businesses fail when they do not have enough customers.

That said,  Comcast as an example offers more than internet,  so it's revenue will be much higher than a pure internet provider. Starlink maybe $40 - $50 billion a year for the same 30 million users base?
No reason Starlink couldn’t offer video and fixed phone service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 06/03/2022 02:19 am
Having to limit the number of users due to not enough bandwidth is a good problem to have. It means they have more customers than they can serve. Businesses fail when they do not have enough customers.

That said,  Comcast as an example offers more than internet,  so it's revenue will be much higher than a pure internet provider. Starlink maybe $40 - $50 billion a year for the same 30 million users base?
No reason Starlink couldn’t offer video and fixed phone service.

VoIP is a giant can of worms though. Lawful intercept/CALEA, e911 support, and PSTN connection stuff is no joke.

For TV, existing users probably already access over-the-top streaming services, or already have satellite TV service from other providers as is, so that doesn't seem worthwhile.

While being a true bulk packet delivery service puts Starlink squarely into an internet utility service category (and thus like other utilities face pressure to lower fees, and thus profit margins), it's still in a new  enough market space to demand high fees (and thus higher margins). Remember the prices for telephone service, and particularly early cellular service. That downward price pressure due to the perception of being a public utility is fierce. People now consider internet access to be equivalent to water/electricity/gas/sewerage/telephone in terms of being a necessary requirement for participating in modern society. Look at all the value-added bundles such providers put out to try to capture revenue, particularly subscription revenue. There are now combined power/gas/internet/VoIP bundles that also feature discounts for other platforms such as streaming services.

With water utilities starting to go privatized as well, we might start seeing the birth of burbclaves, or at least company towns, with high vertical integration. Toyota is building a demo town right now that combines MaaS with city IoT and other services. The iLifestyle with an iCar, to go with your tastefully appointed iHouse is not a total fantasy. In some ways, Elon's mars colony is a manifestation of that as well. A Tesla house with solar and battery storage, Starlink, and Tesla robotaxi service in a pretty subdivision does sound attractive, to some people at least. A starlink equipped house will have low latency, allowing remote VR supervised Teslabots to works as butlers/maids too.

But we are probably getting ahead of ourselves here. The nearterm ecosystem that can be built on top of Starlink will be of interest, and if it piques Musk's attention, a possible acquisition target. But the critical part for that is what kind of demographics show up in the Starlink subscriber base. Rich boomers, comfortably wealthy GenX, and upwardly mobile millennials/Gen Z? If the cross section looks good, supportive services could emerge.

Say, edge datacenters supplying local starlink users exclusively. You could sink a Project Natick submersible datacenter into a rural lake, fed with local hydro power and a starlink antenna on a buoy.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: r1279 on 06/03/2022 03:11 am
Having to limit the number of users due to not enough bandwidth is a good problem to have. It means they have more customers than they can serve. Businesses fail when they do not have enough customers.

That said,  Comcast as an example offers more than internet,  so it's revenue will be much higher than a pure internet provider. Starlink maybe $40 - $50 billion a year for the same 30 million users base?
No reason Starlink couldn’t offer video and fixed phone service.

VoIP is a giant can of worms though. Lawful intercept/CALEA, e911 support, and PSTN connection stuff is no joke.

SpaceX had applied to be an "eligible telecommunications carrier", was/is intending on providing VoIP services, and this was necessary for RDOF funding [not sure where any of that is at - ETC status, RDOF, nor SpaceX's current intentions]

Edit: forum comment (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.msg2188554#msg2188554) with application attached (with service details)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Brovane on 06/03/2022 01:08 pm
I was looking back at the 2017 WSJ article that had gotten access to internal financial documents.

In 2025 SpaceX was projecting that Satellite Internet Revenue would be about $30B.  With a operating profit of $15B.  Kind of seemed absurd back then.  However it no longer seems so absurd. 

“At Space X we specialize in converting things from impossible to late” -Elon Musk
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/03/2022 02:20 pm
I was looking back at the 2017 WSJ article that had gotten access to internal financial documents.

In 2025 SpaceX was project that Satellite Internet Revenue would be about $30B.  With a operating profit of $15B.  Kind of seemed absurd back then.  However it no longer seems so absurd. 

“At Space X we specialize in converting things from impossible to late” -Elon Musk

They maybe right on track.  That looks like 20.8 million users at $120 a month. 

Need to ramp the antenna production pretty quickly. 

21M users in 2025 requires an average of 160,000 users being added per week.  I can see them meeting this and exceeding it.

Exciting times for SpaceX
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 06/05/2022 12:15 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1533408313894912001
So we are at "close to 500k" now. Quite impressive growth.

Contains a Starlink v2 deployment sequence. Main takeaways:
a) At first they seem planning to deploy 54 sats at once.
That's 67.5t payload (+ deployment mech)
b) Sats DO seem to be rectangular - By crude pixelcounting - They seem to be 7m x 2.1m each.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/05/2022 01:15 pm
Deployment sequence portion of Elon’s tweet

Here’s how Starlink v2 deployment will work

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1533436177348325381

Quote
Animation of Starship’s Starlink satellite dispenser system from Musk’s internal SpaceX presentation on Thursday
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Teppich on 06/05/2022 02:11 pm
snip

b) Sats DO seem to be rectangular - By crude pixelcounting - They seem to be 7m x 2.1m each.

Seems reasonable, the geometric limit for sat width at 7m length is 2.8m or so, to keep the diagonal of the stack at 9m.
Add in some clearance at either end, and you end up at 2.1m (40cm at each corner in that case)

Clearance shrinks to 20cm either end for 2.5m width, so that's probably a reasonable upper bound. All assuming length is exactly 7m ofc.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/05/2022 02:21 pm
snip

b) Sats DO seem to be rectangular - By crude pixelcounting - They seem to be 7m x 2.1m each.

Seems reasonable, the geometric limit for sat width at 7m length is 2.8m or so, to keep the diagonal of the stack at 9m.
Add in some clearance at either end, and you end up at 2.1m (40cm at each corner in that case)

Clearance shrinks to 20cm either end for 2.5m width, so that's probably a reasonable upper bound. All assuming length is exactly 7m ofc.
I counted 17 27 pairs of satellites, or 34 54 total. It appears that each layer in the Pez dispenser has two satellites mounted horizontally. Did I miss something? EDIT: I just re-counted. It is indeed 27 pairs.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 06/05/2022 02:36 pm
I counted 17 pairs of satellites, or 34 total. It appears that each layer in the Pez dispenser has two satellites mounted horizontally. Did I miss something?

Pretty sure it's 27 pairs, if you count the # of deployment events.

I wonder what's preventing them from loading more, volume constraint or underperformance of early Starships.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Teppich on 06/05/2022 02:49 pm

I counted 17 pairs of satellites, or 34 total. It appears that each layer in the Pez dispenser has two satellites mounted horizontally. Did I miss something?

I was talking about limits in a single sat xy-plane, nothing to do with the z-height of the entire stack.
(except that I'm assuming that the payload section is cylindrical at constant 9m diameter, which obviously isn't true once the stack starts pushing into the nosecone)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/05/2022 03:04 pm
I counted 17 pairs of satellites, or 34 total. It appears that each layer in the Pez dispenser has two satellites mounted horizontally. Did I miss something?

Pretty sure it's 27 pairs, if you count the # of deployment events.

I wonder what's preventing them from loading more, volume constraint or underperformance of early Starships.
Looking at the video, it appears that the top of the stack is at the top of the cylindrical section, so they are volume-constrained, not mass constrained.

By the time Starship is fully and rapidly reusable, there will be no big advantage in trying to squeeze in a few extra satellites to get closer to the mass limit. Instead, they are likely to optimize for the number of satellites per plane, since launching into a single plane minimizes the time it takes to raise the satellites from the deployment orbit into the operational orbit.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 06/05/2022 03:37 pm
Contains a Starlink v2 deployment sequence. Main takeaways:
a) At first they seem planning to deploy 54 sats at once.
That's 67.5t payload (+ deployment mech)
b) Sats DO seem to be rectangular - By crude pixelcounting - They seem to be 7m x 2.1m each.

And assuming straight section of the nosecone is 8m high, this gives the thickness of each Gen2 as 8m / 27 = 0.3m, so volume of Gen2 is 7.2 x 2.1 x 0.3 = 4.5 m^3, and density is 1250kg / 4.5 m^3 = 277 kg/m^3, comparable to Gen1.

So they basically made Gen2 thicker, and with a smaller platform area than we originally assumed, resulting in less Gen2 stacked in the straight section of nosecone. I guess they have their reasons.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Brovane on 06/05/2022 09:49 pm
I was looking back at the 2017 WSJ article that had gotten access to internal financial documents.

In 2025 SpaceX was project that Satellite Internet Revenue would be about $30B.  With a operating profit of $15B.  Kind of seemed absurd back then.  However it no longer seems so absurd. 

“At Space X we specialize in converting things from impossible to late” -Elon Musk

They maybe right on track.  That looks like 20.8 million users at $120 a month. 

Need to ramp the antenna production pretty quickly. 

21M users in 2025 requires an average of 160,000 users being added per week.  I can see them meeting this and exceeding it.

Exciting times for SpaceX

I think it will be less users.  As SpaceX system becomes more robust they are going to pickup more commercial customers which they can charge a premium for.  For example Telecomm users for a remote Cell Phone site, might just place a commercial high performance antenna at 500/month or more.  That one commercial user can be the same as 5 standard users.  You get 1 Million commercial users, that revenue stream is equivalent to 5 Million basic customers.  That trickle of commercial customers is going to become a torrent, especially once SpaceX gets approval for service on the move.    If V2 of Starlink satellites support 1Gb plus speeds for end points, SpaceX could easily charge several grand a month.  It is going to happen quickly and all the naysayers about Starlink are going to be absolutely stunned at how quickly the turnover occurs. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 06/06/2022 01:37 am
Note sure if the image of gen2 is accurate, but on the face of it, it sorta looks like they are keeping the the 3 ISL layout, at least for the generic gen2's.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 06/06/2022 04:14 am
By the time Starship is fully and rapidly reusable, there will be no big advantage in trying to squeeze in a few extra satellites to get closer to the mass limit. Instead, they are likely to optimize for the number of satellites per plane, since launching into a single plane minimizes the time it takes to raise the satellites from the deployment orbit into the operational orbit.
Plane drift is about .5 degrees/day.
Assume you can launch one SS per day.

To fill a shell with 72 planes at one plane per launch takes 72 days plus the orbit raise time.

To fill the same shell launching 3 planes at a time takes 24 days, plus 20 days drift, plus the orbit raise time.

The one you would not expect is 18 days faster.

Also given a random failure rate of a few percent they will want to launch excess numbers each time.  Since the failures are random you can't launch a perfect plane.  There will be some drifting to spread the spares evenly.

Overall, for filling the major shells they are going to want as many satellites as possible per launch at least until there are many launches per day.

TLDR with a dense shell drifting does not take long. so they will be launching multiple planes at once indefinitely.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: r1279 on 06/06/2022 03:23 pm
By the time Starship is fully and rapidly reusable, there will be no big advantage in trying to squeeze in a few extra satellites to get closer to the mass limit. Instead, they are likely to optimize for the number of satellites per plane, since launching into a single plane minimizes the time it takes to raise the satellites from the deployment orbit into the operational orbit.
Plane drift is about .5 degrees/day.
Assume you can launch one SS per day.

To fill a shell with 72 planes at one plane per launch takes 72 days plus the orbit raise time.

To fill the same shell launching 3 planes at a time takes 24 days, plus 20 days drift, plus the orbit raise time.

The one you would not expect is 18 days faster.

Also given a random failure rate of a few percent they will want to launch excess numbers each time.  Since the failures are random you can't launch a perfect plane.  There will be some drifting to spread the spares evenly.

Overall, for filling the major shells they are going to want as many satellites as possible per launch at least until there are many launches per day.

TLDR with a dense shell drifting does not take long. so they will be launching multiple planes at once indefinitely.

The end results of these two scenarios aren't exactly the same.  Using your numbers, 24 launches of 3x18 might give you a full set of planes, but only 1296 sats of added bandwidth.  72 launches of 1x54 gives you 3888 sats of added bandwidth.

And you don't need 72 launches to be beneficial; launch half a shell in 36 launches [no drift time just orbital raising] and have 36x54=1,944 sats of added bandwidth.  The more central latitudes might have less coverage until the 2nd half but by the time daily Starship launches are occurring global V2 coverage will already be in place.

Initially, while Starship's launch cadence is low/limited, taking advantage of drifting makes sense to me to get that initial global V2 coverage in place, but after that [when Starship launches and Starlink production have ramped up] is it really that beneficial?

** No shell in the 2nd Gen constellation has 72 planes, the largest is 48

Edit: Also wouldn't your drift/day value depend on the difference in altitude.  If drifting at 350 km targeting the 530 km shell, where the V2 constellation only has 28 planes, your 3 plane distribution implies 25.7° or 51 days of drift for your 3rd plane (at your defined rate). 

The lower shells have more planes [48] but those shells are 340-350km so the relative rate of drift is much slower (at whatever lower altitude you deploy and drift at).  [I suppose those sats could raise higher and drift backwards at a similar pace... but isn't this quickly becoming a bit of a mess when you could just deploy the sats at their target plane?]
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/06/2022 05:37 pm
By the time Starship is fully and rapidly reusable, there will be no big advantage in trying to squeeze in a few extra satellites to get closer to the mass limit. Instead, they are likely to optimize for the number of satellites per plane, since launching into a single plane minimizes the time it takes to raise the satellites from the deployment orbit into the operational orbit.
Plane drift is about .5 degrees/day.
Assume you can launch one SS per day.

To fill a shell with 72 planes at one plane per launch takes 72 days plus the orbit raise time.

To fill the same shell launching 3 planes at a time takes 24 days, plus 20 days drift, plus the orbit raise time.

The one you would not expect is 18 days faster.

Also given a random failure rate of a few percent they will want to launch excess numbers each time.  Since the failures are random you can't launch a perfect plane.  There will be some drifting to spread the spares evenly.

Overall, for filling the major shells they are going to want as many satellites as possible per launch at least until there are many launches per day.

TLDR with a dense shell drifting does not take long. so they will be launching multiple planes at once indefinitely.

The end results of these two scenarios aren't exactly the same.  Using your numbers, 24 launches of 3x18 might give you a full set of planes, but only 1296 sats of added bandwidth.  72 launches of 1x54 gives you 3888 sats of added bandwidth.

And you don't need 72 launches to be beneficial; launch half a shell in 36 launches [no drift time just orbital raising] and have 36x54=1,944 sats of added bandwidth.  The more central latitudes might have less coverage until the 2nd half but by the time daily Starship launches are occurring global V2 coverage will already be in place.

Initially, while Starship's launch cadence is low/limited, taking advantage of drifting makes sense to me to get that initial global V2 coverage in place, but after that [when Starship launches and Starlink production have ramped up] is it really that beneficial?

** No shell in the 2nd Gen constellation has 72 planes, the largest is 48

Edit: Also wouldn't your drift/day value depend on the difference in altitude.  If drifting at 350 km targeting the 530 km shell, where the V2 constellation only has 28 planes, your 3 plane distribution implies 25.7° or 51 days of drift for your 3rd plane (at your defined rate). 

The lower shells have more planes [48] but those shells are 340-350km so the relative rate of drift is much slower (at whatever lower altitude you deploy and drift at).  [I suppose those sats could raise higher and drift backwards at a similar pace... but isn't this quickly becoming a bit of a mess when you could just deploy the sats at their target plane?]
The other potential gain is that you have enough delta V to launch to a higher deployment orbit. You aren't drifting to adjust RA, so no need to stay low. This higher deployment orbit shortens the orbit raising time and saves fuel for the satellites. Completely DoA satellites will take a bit longer to decay, but I don't know what percentage of satellites are so dead that they cannot be commanded to de-orbit.

Note that a plane may in theory have satellites in more than one shell. I don't know if Starlink uses this configuration. There are some nice configs that use the lowest shell for user interface and the higher shell for ISL relay.

It only takes 72 days for 72 launches if you restrict yourself to one launch per day. We do not know what the launch cadence will be.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 06/07/2022 07:15 am
Note that a plane may in theory have satellites in more than one shell. I don't know if Starlink uses this configuration. There are some nice configs that use the lowest shell for user interface and the higher shell for ISL relay.
Shells at different altitudes precess at different rates.  If different altitudes start out in the same "plane" they won't be for long.  Even altitude difference of a few tens of km are enough to have the higher orbits drift to an adjacent plane during the course of a year.  The design can't take advantage of different shells being aligned.  Intershell communication has to be able to handle arbitrary alignment between shells.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/07/2022 02:56 pm
Note that a plane may in theory have satellites in more than one shell. I don't know if Starlink uses this configuration. There are some nice configs that use the lowest shell for user interface and the higher shell for ISL relay.
Shells at different altitudes precess at different rates.  If different altitudes start out in the same "plane" they won't be for long.  Even altitude difference of a few tens of km are enough to have the higher orbits drift to an adjacent plane during the course of a year.  The design can't take advantage of different shells being aligned.  Intershell communication has to be able to handle arbitrary alignment between shells.
OK, thanks. A single launch can still put satellites into one plane in each of two shells instead of putting them into two planes of one shell. This may provide some extra flexibility when deciding how to allocate e.g. 54 satellites among orbits.

Yes, the lower-shell satellites cannot depend on the higher-shell satellites being in the same plane but the "up" links will still change relatively slowly and predictably. I am assuming the low-layer satellites are ISL linked to their next-ahead and next-behind, and each is also linked "up" with one link. The "up" links switch as needed but in a coordinated fashion so a satellite will use its next-ahead instead of its "up" when it is re-targeting its "up", and only a small percentage will be re-targeting at any one time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 06/07/2022 04:12 pm
OK, thanks. A single launch can still put satellites into one plane in each of two shells instead of putting them into two planes of one shell. This may provide some extra flexibility when deciding how to allocate e.g. 54 satellites among orbits.
That's a good idea I hadn't thought of.  It works as long as the shells have "similar" inclinations and altitudes.

The ∆v from 550km 53° to 540km 53.2° is less than 30m/s.  If you combine orbit raising with inclination changes the extra ∆v for the inclination change is about 5m/s.  Compared this to >110m/s used for orbit raising from 350km to 550km with no inclination change.

So it is possible that if there any holes in the first shell SpaceX can fill them by drifting a few satellites over while filling the second shell, rather than launching onesie-twosies or a single launch of many satellites into 53° inclination and waiting close to a year to fill the furthest hole.  They can manage the two shells as a single unit.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 06/07/2022 04:40 pm

TLDR with a dense shell drifting does not take long. so they will be launching multiple planes at once indefinitely.

The end results of these two scenarios aren't exactly the same.  Using your numbers, 24 launches of 3x18 might give you a full set of planes, but only 1296 sats of added bandwidth.  72 launches of 1x54 gives you 3888 sats of added bandwidth.

I haven't been clear so let me try again.

When you have 1000's or 10,000's of satellites they will be quite tightly packed in terms of ∆v and time to move between adjacent orbits.  This doesn't depend on details of number of shells or planes, simply on the number of satellites and the size of the parameter space you need to scatter them over.

This means you can decouple the number of satellites in a launch from the geometry of constellation.  With a little planning there is almost always a nearby orbit you can put any extras quickly and cheaply.  Conversely, if you're a few short you can fill the holes on the next launch and move the rest somewhere useful quickly and cheaply.

If you have a dispenser to launch 97 at once, you'll usually launch 97 at once.  It does not matter that 97 is prime and will end up with a partial plane, you can fill that later.  If it's a rideshare and you can only fit 67 and again fill a different fraction of a plane that's fine too.  Launching at less than capacity should be fairly rare.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/07/2022 05:23 pm

If you have a dispenser to launch 97 at once, you'll usually launch 97 at once.  It does not matter that 97 is prime and will end up with a partial plane, you can fill that later.  If it's a rideshare and you can only fit 67 and again fill a different fraction of a plane that's fine too.  Launching at less than capacity should be fairly rare.
Valid in concept but maybe not in practice. I don't think the Pez dispenser will be useful for generic rideshare. As you say, the V2.0 constellation will be huge, so dedicating the Pez dispenser(s) to it is not an economic problem. Rideshare can go up on the generic cargo lifter.

Going back to our silly made-up numbers, they will need 600 Pez flights at 50 satellites/launch to get to 30,000, so they will need two launches/day for ten months.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 06/07/2022 07:26 pm
Anyone think there is enough height for an inverted single Starlink dispenser on top of the dual dispenser in the Starship nose section. Using a slightly taller common deployment slot. Figure that a stack of at least 18 additional Starlink v2 might be possible. So that a Starship can deployed 72 Starlink v2 per launch.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: russianhalo117 on 06/07/2022 07:36 pm
I counted 17 pairs of satellites, or 34 total. It appears that each layer in the Pez dispenser has two satellites mounted horizontally. Did I miss something?

Pretty sure it's 27 pairs, if you count the # of deployment events.

I wonder what's preventing them from loading more, volume constraint or underperformance of early Starships.
Conservative upper limits which over time shrink down. Another round of that shrinking game is ongoing with the Falcon family. There are other limits such as current Starship Booster height with the temporarily deleted tank rings to fit in the high bay on a transport and engine outfitting stand and Elon proposed Starship stretch (all stages but mainly ship) et al.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/07/2022 08:56 pm
Regarding Starship's Starlink capacity.  If performance isn't limited by the mass of the satellites, could they not add 1 or 2 rings to the payload bay section to increase length and capacity that way?

It would change the flight dynamics some and makes the Starship dry mass higher, but it would give more volume.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Roy_H on 06/08/2022 07:01 pm
Has anybody heard any rumors on when Starlink mobile ground stations might become available. Clearly they have the tech, as mobile versions have been developed for airplanes, but I can see that Starlink would go after that far more lucrative market before selling consumer version to us common folks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Ghoti on 06/08/2022 07:08 pm
Has anybody heard any rumors on when Starlink mobile ground stations might become available. Clearly they have the tech, as mobile versions have been developed for airplanes, but I can see that Starlink would go after that far more lucrative market before selling consumer version to us common folks.
https://www.starlink.com/rv
Apparently you can order now.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ajmarco on 06/08/2022 07:13 pm
Has anybody heard any rumors on when Starlink mobile ground stations might become available. Clearly they have the tech, as mobile versions have been developed for airplanes, but I can see that Starlink would go after that far more lucrative market before selling consumer version to us common folks.
https://www.starlink.com/rv
Apparently you can order now.

Those plans allow you to travel with your 'Dish' and use it from multiple locations. However, they are not for use while in motion.

Before they become available for consumer use, let SpaceX finish testing them and working out the kinks with boats and airplanes. Additionally, I believe they don't have FCC approval yet to offer that(in-motion) as a commercial product.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/08/2022 07:17 pm
Has anybody heard any rumors on when Starlink mobile ground stations might become available. Clearly they have the tech, as mobile versions have been developed for airplanes, but I can see that Starlink would go after that far more lucrative market before selling consumer version to us common folks.
They are already selling comms-on-the-pause, to RVs. Ground-based comms-on-the-move has some issues that you do not have on commercial aircraft. The stations on the aircraft are prohibited from transmitting when the plane is withing 10,000 feet of the ground (at least that was true for the GEO service) so no worries about the beam hitting something overhead like a pedestrian on an overpass with a dangerous amount of power. Also, a car or truck accelerates abruptly and unpredictably in six dimensions as it bounces and jounces, while a commercial aircraft does not.  Large ships are a much more lucrative short-term market, but these require ISL links because ships are far from the teleports.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 06/08/2022 07:34 pm
Has anybody heard any rumors on when Starlink mobile ground stations might become available. Clearly they have the tech, as mobile versions have been developed for airplanes, but I can see that Starlink would go after that far more lucrative market before selling consumer version to us common folks.
I have the RV sub on my boat. Its a little more expensive and you get reduced performance when in an area of high congestion but it works great.

Edit: it does appear to be geo fenced. Hit the 12 mile limit and boom it goes offline - except around Florida which I assume is so the SpaceX fleet can use it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Kiwi53 on 06/09/2022 12:32 am
Has anybody heard any rumors on when Starlink mobile ground stations might become available. Clearly they have the tech, as mobile versions have been developed for airplanes, but I can see that Starlink would go after that far more lucrative market before selling consumer version to us common folks.
AIUI, the frequencies that SpaceX has ITU permission to use for Starlink are for fixed ground station operation. This includes 'moveable' devices such as the Starlink RV use case which can be used in different places but only when the platform is stationary. In the past, the ITU has allowed this kind of operation to include 'ground' stations on large commercial ships, maybe on the basis that such ships move relatively slowly and don't suddenly change speed or direction of travel. I'm not sure if that was an official policy or just turning a blind eye to it.

What this boils down to is that SpaceX might have to register different frequencies with the ITU, and license them from the FCC and other countries' authorities to legally operate mobile - on the move - Starlink terminals
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/09/2022 09:43 pm
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1535014195598569472

Quote
Awesome to see how people are using Starlink for RVs! 30,000 orders and counting → starlink.com/rv
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 06/10/2022 12:35 pm
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/spacex-building-airline-type-flight-ops-launch

Quote
SpaceX Building Airline-Type Flight Ops For Launch

June 10, 2022

FIRST IN A SERIES When SpaceX debuted the Block 5 version of its Falcon 9 rocket in 2018, it expected to fly the reusable boosters 10 times before taking them out of service for major refurbishment. But last summer, the company quietly moved the goalpost. “We got to 10 [flights] and the vehicles...

In this article Bill Gerstenmaier says that SpaceX is building 20,000 user antennas per week.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/10/2022 01:07 pm
In this article Bill Gerstenmaier says that SpaceX is building 20,000 user antennas per week.

So, 1 million a year....
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/10/2022 01:51 pm
In this article Bill Gerstenmaier says that SpaceX is building 20,000 user antennas per week.

So, 1 million a year....

Paywall, Doh! 

Elon thinks in orders of magnitude.  1 million a year is a fraction sounds ok, but we can be sure the goal is a much higher volume of a cheaper antenna.  That ramp is what I'm looking to understand.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gsa on 06/10/2022 02:55 pm
In this article Bill Gerstenmaier says that SpaceX is building 20,000 user antennas per week.

So, 1 million a year....

Paywall, Doh! 

There's no paywall. You just need to register.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 06/10/2022 04:54 pm
In this article Bill Gerstenmaier says that SpaceX is building 20,000 user antennas per week.

So, 1 million a year....

Or over a billion in yearly revenue added per year, with manufacturing improvements increasing the increase. In other words, the start of another exponential curve.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/10/2022 05:39 pm
In this article Bill Gerstenmaier says that SpaceX is building 20,000 user antennas per week.

So, 1 million a year....

Or over a billion in yearly revenue added per year, with manufacturing improvements increasing the increase. In other words, the start of another exponential curve.

The Starlink curve is going to be unlike anything people have seen.  That's why investors are lining up.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/10/2022 09:02 pm
This is a missing piece of information that supports my estimate that by EOY 2023 that Starlink will be cash positive. At somewhere between $1.5B and $2B in revenue all costs become covered. Sat manufacture, launch, Gateways, customer service and other overhead costs are then covered where it is possible to have a small cash positive cash flow. And as such any new funding being saught for Starlink would be to accelerate growth vs continue at it s current growth rate of 1M subscribers and $1B in revenue per year. Such that in 3 and half years at EOY 2025 revenue would be >$4B/year without any further additional investments beyond any done in 2023.

With this new plant expanding its build rates for terminals and the subsequent lowering of cost per terminal. Growth for Starlink is not in the near future as in the next 3 to 4 years, to be a linear increase but a exponential increase. What that exponential factor extent would be is a guess at this point other than it looks at this point to be an almost certainty of it occurring. Such that by the time of an IPO at 3 to 4 year form now point. The valuation of Starlink as a standalone business would be valued to easily a $100B amount if not actually closer to $200B amount.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 06/10/2022 09:12 pm
What's the advantage of IPO? Cash-out for early investors?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/10/2022 09:50 pm
What's the advantage of IPO? Cash-out for early investors?

An Item that comes to mind is that this would be a perfect timing to do funding for a major capabilities expansion. A Gen3 Sat that has a 2X to 8X or even more data throughput than the Gen2 sats. Likely this would be accomplished with a massive usage of sat to ground laser links that support 1Gbits to 10Gbits user data bandwidth. Eventually all the Gateways would be switched over to using these laser links and that the Ka frequencies are freed up for usage like that of the Ku frequencies general user subscribers at the lower data rates and lower per month subscriber prices. These prices would be a lot closer to the general cable prices for similar data rates.

The basic note here is that a few $B as in <$5B in new funding would probably be sufficient to accomplish the startup of implementing a Gen3 upgrade system wide. With the revenue increases in the first few years covering the remaining costs of the Gen3 upgrades just like what looks to happen with the Gen2 upgrade.

The other funds are likely to fund Mars missions and much to a lesser point speculative commercial Lunar missions.

And then there are some funds to pay out to investors that want to take their money and run. These may be very very few. At the time of this IPO SpaceX will have gained in value >1000% to possibly >4000%. Such ROI's and a company still in its growth spurt phase will likely not find many investors willing to cash out just yet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 06/10/2022 10:24 pm
A Gen3 Sat that has a 2X to 8X or even more data throughput than the Gen2 sats.
Hm, now I am beginning to understand why Elon keeps touting thousands Starships per year.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/10/2022 11:24 pm
A Gen3 Sat that has a 2X to 8X or even more data throughput than the Gen2 sats.
Hm, now I am beginning to understand why Elon keeps touting thousands Starships per year.

Thanks!
Yes. Imagine a Gen3 sat that is 2X to 4X (2.5t to 5t each) the mass and volume of a Gen2 sat. Such that the number of launches also increase by a factor of 2 to 4 with the rate matching that. But don't expect any Gen3 sats to show up til 2026/2027. But even though the launch rate/yr for Starlink in 2027 could be as high as >300/yr. ~1 Starlink launch a day. Total launches for Gen3 full constellation over 5 years as high a 1,500.

A side note is that these sats each could have a solar array that generates ~500KW. All 30,000 sats together would produce 15GW.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/11/2022 12:44 am
A Gen3 Sat that has a 2X to 8X or even more data throughput than the Gen2 sats.
Hm, now I am beginning to understand why Elon keeps touting thousands Starships per year.

Thanks!
Yes. Imagine a Gen3 sat that is 2X to 4X (2.5t to 5t each) the mass and volume of a Gen2 sat. Such that the number of launches also increase by a factor of 2 to 4 with the rate matching that. But don't expect any Gen3 sats to show up til 2026/2027. But even though the launch rate/yr for Starlink in 2027 could be as high as >300/yr. ~1 Starlink launch a day. Total launches for Gen3 full constellation over 5 years as high a 1,500.

A side note is that these sats each could have a solar array that generates ~500KW. All 30,000 sats together would produce 15GW.
There is a maximum bandwidth per beam, and I suspect Gen2 is already at that max. The only way to increase the Bandwidth on the satellite is to increase the number of beams, which you do by reducing the footprint of each beam. However, there is a practical lower limit on the footprint size: too small and the terminals spend all their time beam switching and efficieny goes down. You beat the problem by adding satellites, each of which has a separate set of beams. The satellites must be spatially separated so that a terminal that is in footprints of multiple satellites will "see only one of them because its antenna has sufficient directivity. Yes, extra power can allow some increase in bits/hz in the downlink, up to a point, but that does not help much in the uplink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/11/2022 02:14 pm
A Gen3 Sat that has a 2X to 8X or even more data throughput than the Gen2 sats.
Hm, now I am beginning to understand why Elon keeps touting thousands Starships per year.

Thanks!
Yes. Imagine a Gen3 sat that is 2X to 4X (2.5t to 5t each) the mass and volume of a Gen2 sat. Such that the number of launches also increase by a factor of 2 to 4 with the rate matching that. But don't expect any Gen3 sats to show up til 2026/2027. But even though the launch rate/yr for Starlink in 2027 could be as high as >300/yr. ~1 Starlink launch a day. Total launches for Gen3 full constellation over 5 years as high a 1,500.

A side note is that these sats each could have a solar array that generates ~500KW. All 30,000 sats together would produce 15GW.
There is a maximum bandwidth per beam, and I suspect Gen2 is already at that max. The only way to increase the Bandwidth on the satellite is to increase the number of beams, which you do by reducing the footprint of each beam. However, there is a practical lower limit on the footprint size: too small and the terminals spend all their time beam switching and efficieny goes down. You beat the problem by adding satellites, each of which has a separate set of beams. The satellites must be spatially separated so that a terminal that is in footprints of multiple satellites will "see only one of them because its antenna has sufficient directivity. Yes, extra power can allow some increase in bits/hz in the downlink, up to a point, but that does not help much in the uplink.

Do we know anything on the laser inter links on Gen2?  Will there be more LIL’s say to connect with different planes or more birds in different planes?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/11/2022 02:26 pm
A Gen3 Sat that has a 2X to 8X or even more data throughput than the Gen2 sats.
Hm, now I am beginning to understand why Elon keeps touting thousands Starships per year.

Thanks!
Yes. Imagine a Gen3 sat that is 2X to 4X (2.5t to 5t each) the mass and volume of a Gen2 sat. Such that the number of launches also increase by a factor of 2 to 4 with the rate matching that. But don't expect any Gen3 sats to show up til 2026/2027. But even though the launch rate/yr for Starlink in 2027 could be as high as >300/yr. ~1 Starlink launch a day. Total launches for Gen3 full constellation over 5 years as high a 1,500.

A side note is that these sats each could have a solar array that generates ~500KW. All 30,000 sats together would produce 15GW.
There is a maximum bandwidth per beam, and I suspect Gen2 is already at that max. The only way to increase the Bandwidth on the satellite is to increase the number of beams, which you do by reducing the footprint of each beam. However, there is a practical lower limit on the footprint size: too small and the terminals spend all their time beam switching and efficieny goes down. You beat the problem by adding satellites, each of which has a separate set of beams. The satellites must be spatially separated so that a terminal that is in footprints of multiple satellites will "see only one of them because its antenna has sufficient directivity. Yes, extra power can allow some increase in bits/hz in the downlink, up to a point, but that does not help much in the uplink.

Do we know anything on the laser inter links on Gen2?  Will there be more LIL’s say to connect with different planes or more birds in different planes?
A satellite with an infinite amount of ISL bandwidth still has a finite amount of RF user bandwidth in each user beam.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/11/2022 04:32 pm
What I am speculating on is that the Gen3 sats would sport a tremendous amount of Satellite to Ground Laser Links. Each link would provide at least 1Gbps to a single user and a high rate of 100Gbps to a single user or a Gateway connection. A single sat could have a troughput of 4Tbps mostly made up of the sat to ground laser links (SGLLs). The RF Ku, Ka and possibly also V bands would be for lower  user data rates of <500Mbps at near competitive prices to what other terrestrial data ISPs offer. The current 150Mbps data rate service could end priced at $19.95 (in 2022 dollars) by 2030. The laser link to ground terminals for users would be like the terrestrial service of direct fiber to home or business with similar data rates.

Each sat constellation operator would be then a major Internet worldwide backbone supplier. The Gateway connections is where other such large networks interchange data instead of using the terrestrial backbones to connect to other parts of their own network. The total Starlink network data troughput would be a massive 100+Pbps.

Note this is speculation not what will happen. But Musk has already hinted at Starlink eventually supporting single user links by some sort of method at 10Gbps bandwidth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/11/2022 04:56 pm
What I am speculating on is that the Gen3 sats would sport a tremendous amount of Satellite to Ground Laser Links. Each link would provide at least 1Gbps to a single user and a high rate of 100Gbps to a single user or a Gateway connection. A single sat could have a troughput of 4Tbps mostly made up of the sat to ground laser links (SGLLs). The RF Ku, Ka and possibly also V bands would be for lower  user data rates of <500Mbps at near competitive prices to what other terrestrial data ISPs offer. The current 150Mbps data rate service could end priced at $19.95 (in 2022 dollars) by 2030. The laser link to ground terminals for users would be like the terrestrial service of direct fiber to home or business with similar data rates.

Each sat constellation operator would be then a major Internet worldwide backbone supplier. The Gateway connections is where other such large networks interchange data instead of using the terrestrial backbones to connect to other parts of their own network. The total Starlink network data troughput would be a massive 100+Pbps.

Note this is speculation not what will happen. But Musk has already hinted at Starlink eventually supporting single user links by some sort of method at 10Gbps bandwidth.
:) I guess you live in the Atacama, or perhaps the Namib? Sadly, most of us live where there are clouds.  You cannot even use lasers laser links for teleports, much less users.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/11/2022 08:18 pm
What I am speculating on is that the Gen3 sats would sport a tremendous amount of Satellite to Ground Laser Links. Each link would provide at least 1Gbps to a single user and a high rate of 100Gbps to a single user or a Gateway connection. A single sat could have a troughput of 4Tbps mostly made up of the sat to ground laser links (SGLLs). The RF Ku, Ka and possibly also V bands would be for lower  user data rates of <500Mbps at near competitive prices to what other terrestrial data ISPs offer. The current 150Mbps data rate service could end priced at $19.95 (in 2022 dollars) by 2030. The laser link to ground terminals for users would be like the terrestrial service of direct fiber to home or business with similar data rates.

Each sat constellation operator would be then a major Internet worldwide backbone supplier. The Gateway connections is where other such large networks interchange data instead of using the terrestrial backbones to connect to other parts of their own network. The total Starlink network data troughput would be a massive 100+Pbps.

Note this is speculation not what will happen. But Musk has already hinted at Starlink eventually supporting single user links by some sort of method at 10Gbps bandwidth.
:) I guess you live in the Atacama, or perhaps the Namib? Sadly, most of us live where there are clouds.  You cannot even use lasers laser links for teleports, much less users.
The current approach by current implementer of Sat to ground laser comm including the one to be implemented by the SDA Transport Layer implementation is to use multiple ground terminals for the high bandwidth secure data dumps in order to skip those occluded by a cloud layer for those not occluded. While this would work perfectly fine with Sat to Gateway on Starlink it would not work for users because they only have the single terminal. There are some R&D ongoing to solve this problem with cloud osculation of laser comm. One of which is to use a powerful IR laser to bore a hole through the cloud and maintain the hole while simultaneously on a different wavelength light Laser transmit and receive data to and from the sat. This method looks technically feasible but have some usage problems when it comes to general public use due to power output of the IR laser. In 3 to 5 years this may get solved and then again possibly not. Whereby Gateway data comm would be by Laser and User comm would be by RF. Just this division would at least double the frequencies available for User comm from a Satellite by not having to use half of the RF capability to stay in contact with a Gateway.

Laser comm tech is advancing very fast. But possibly not enough to solve it for the case of a single user terminal to maintain contact through sats via Laser. Where a partial solution would be a combined RF and Laser comm where if Laser comm is unavailable because of extensive cloud cover. It defaults to an RF linkage until the sky clears up enough to redo the Laser link.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/11/2022 08:32 pm
What I am speculating on is that the Gen3 sats would sport a tremendous amount of Satellite to Ground Laser Links. Each link would provide at least 1Gbps to a single user and a high rate of 100Gbps to a single user or a Gateway connection. A single sat could have a troughput of 4Tbps mostly made up of the sat to ground laser links (SGLLs). The RF Ku, Ka and possibly also V bands would be for lower  user data rates of <500Mbps at near competitive prices to what other terrestrial data ISPs offer. The current 150Mbps data rate service could end priced at $19.95 (in 2022 dollars) by 2030. The laser link to ground terminals for users would be like the terrestrial service of direct fiber to home or business with similar data rates.

Each sat constellation operator would be then a major Internet worldwide backbone supplier. The Gateway connections is where other such large networks interchange data instead of using the terrestrial backbones to connect to other parts of their own network. The total Starlink network data troughput would be a massive 100+Pbps.

Note this is speculation not what will happen. But Musk has already hinted at Starlink eventually supporting single user links by some sort of method at 10Gbps bandwidth.
:) I guess you live in the Atacama, or perhaps the Namib? Sadly, most of us live where there are clouds.  You cannot even use lasers laser links for teleports, much less users.
The current approach by current implementer of Sat to ground laser comm including the one to be implemented by the SDA Transport Layer implementation is to use multiple ground terminals for the high bandwidth secure data dumps in order to skip those occluded by a cloud layer for those not occluded. While this would work perfectly fine with Sat to Gateway on Starlink it would not work for users because they only have the single terminal. There are some R&D ongoing to solve this problem with cloud osculation of laser comm. One of which is to use a powerful IR laser to bore a hole through the cloud and maintain the hole while simultaneously on a different wavelength light Laser transmit and receive data to and from the sat. This method looks technically feasible but have some usage problems when it comes to general public use due to power output of the IR laser. In 3 to 5 years this may get solved and then again possibly not. Whereby Gateway data comm would be by Laser and User comm would be by RF. Just this division would at least double the frequencies available for User comm from a Satellite by not having to use half of the RF capability to stay in contact with a Gateway.

Laser comm tech is advancing very fast. But possibly not enough to solve it for the case of a single user terminal to maintain contact through sats via Laser. Where a partial solution would be a combined RF and Laser comm where if Laser comm is unavailable because of extensive cloud cover. It defaults to an RF linkage until the sky clears up enough to redo the Laser link.
As long as an individual user depends on a single location for the user terminal, lasers are impractical for the user link. Yes laser downlinks are practical for the teleports links if the saltellites have ISL because the network can route around occluded links, but realistically the user links will be RF. No, you don't double the bandwidth. The teleport RF links use a much smaller footprint than the User links already, so reallocation of this RF to the user side is more complicated than that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/11/2022 10:06 pm
We are sort of in agreement. The conversion for use of the Ka band for users vs Gateway data comm links would have to wait anyway until most of the Gen2 sats had been deorbited and mostly only Gen3 sats would be on orbit. Also all the Gateways would have to be upgraded to use primarily the Laser links with Ka band usage being a worst case backup is things got really bad sharing with users the bandwidth. The final item awaiting on is a flat panel phased array antenna for Ka band that is cheap enough to be used in the higher end and data rate business client subscriptions. As well as a phased array antenna for Ka band on the sat.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 06/12/2022 07:27 pm
I've got to wonder, what sort of spread is to be expected from a red laser over a 1000km (worst case?) distance? I know blue will be tighter. What intensity would be expected?


I can put up with a sat trail through a pic but don't relish a laser flare into my eyeball at f/7. Is this an issue?


If they can burn a hole through clouds, maybe I'll hire them some nights.  :D




Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 06/13/2022 01:42 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1535394359373443073

Quote
Starlink inter-satellite laser links should be operational by end of year. This will dramatically reduce global latency.

Light travels ~40% faster in vacuum/air than in fiber optic cables & satellite path length is shorter (cables follow coastlines).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/13/2022 01:51 pm
So, operational because they will have enough satellites in shell 4 or because they are still working on technical issues?

Looking forward to Elon's next update.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 06/13/2022 02:09 pm
Starlink being tested on a Royal Caribbean Freedom of the seas

https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/vb6egg/starlink_onboard_royal_caribbeans_freedom_of_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: pyromatter on 06/13/2022 02:09 pm
https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/1536345951354298368
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: abaddon on 06/13/2022 04:01 pm
Quote
Light travels ~40% faster in vacuum/air than in fiber optic cables & satellite path length is shorter (cables follow coastlines).
It also travels 10,000% faster in vacuum/air than from South America to North America.  No, really.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/13/2022 04:53 pm
The diagram shown for the France new approval. Supposedly an official diagram sourced from SpaceX. Shows the ISL data rate between sats for the V1.5 sats to be 100Gbps. Being >3X the RF bandwidth of a sat is expected so that at least 3 sats in a row can be supported by the rest of the sats in the plane.

The difference between now and by the EOY 2022 is that now there is insufficient number of planes with ISL to be able to support a 24/7 coverage to those areas with no or isolated disconnected gateways.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/13/2022 06:45 pm
The difference between now and by the EOY 2022 is that now there is insufficient number of planes with ISL to be able to support a 24/7 coverage to those areas with no or isolated disconnected gateways.

Just surprised they are not using them in limited fashion. A one sat hop from a ground station to a better positioned satellite could sometimes help with some of the angles. Just glad we have an update.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 06/14/2022 12:05 am
The diagram shown for the France new approval. Supposedly an official diagram sourced from SpaceX. Shows the ISL data rate between sats for the V1.5 sats to be 100Gbps. Being >3X the RF bandwidth of a sat is expected so that at least 3 sats in a row can be supported by the rest of the sats in the plane.

The difference between now and by the EOY 2022 is that now there is insufficient number of planes with ISL to be able to support a 24/7 coverage to those areas with no or isolated disconnected gateways.

Reddit user feral_engineer found this diagram in Starlink's filing with France regulator Arcep, in an attachment (https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/contributions-consult-starlink_juin2022.zip) in Arcep's 2nd Starlink approval announcement (https://www.arcep.fr/actualites/les-communiques-de-presse/detail/n/frequences-020622.html). The diagram shows 100Gbps+ ISL between presumably Gen1 Starlink (since it says the ISL will be globally operational in 2023). It also shows 100Gbps link between PoP and Gateway.

Is 100Gbps+ the highest publicly known operational ISL operating? NASA was going to fly something soon-ish doing 200Gbps I think...

That's assuming one laser terminal is 100Gbps and not two (of the known three lasercomm terminals on a Starlink v1.5 sat, and early official images of v2 also appearing to show 3 lasercomm terminals also)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/14/2022 12:26 am

Is 100Gbps+ the highest publicly known operational ISL operating? NASA was going to fly something soon-ish doing 200Gbps I think...

That's assuming one laser terminal is 100Gbps and not two (of the known three lasercomm terminals on a Starlink v1.5 sat, and early official images of v2 also appearing to show 3 lasercomm terminals also)
100Gbps is not very challenging at the optical level. A single optical system can handle as many lambdas as you want in vacuum and each lambda can handle maybe 100 Gbps. The system will be constrained a little by the lasers and detectors, and much more constrained by the electronics. The reason to stop at 100 Gbps is that the system as a whole is constrained by the teleport RF and the user-side RF, so essentially no ISL will need to carry 100 Gbps.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 06/14/2022 01:18 am
The reason to stop at 100 Gbps is that the system as a whole is constrained by the teleport RF and the user-side RF, so essentially no ISL will need to carry 100 Gbps.
It could use more if you'd want to route to destination instead of hot potato. But that's maybe for v2.
Any idea for the teleport bw?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/14/2022 02:03 am
The reason to stop at 100 Gbps is that the system as a whole is constrained by the teleport RF and the user-side RF, so essentially no ISL will need to carry 100 Gbps.
It could use more if you'd want to route to destination instead of hot potato. But that's maybe for v2.
Any idea for the teleport bw?
There is no indication that SpaceX intends to use lasers to teleports. It's hard. Unless you are using lasers to teleports at both ends, it is still very difficult to get even as high as 100 Gbps on any given ISL. If I were trying to link Teleports via lasers using Starlink, I would use optical switching on separate lambdas, but absolutely nobody is discussing this approach. The biggest problem remains cloud occlusion. There is a possible way around this, but nobody is pursuing this either:
  https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9,866,324.PN.&OS=PN/9,866,324&RS=PN/9,866,324
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 06/14/2022 03:43 am
No I meant what is the radio bandwidth currently. Not thinking about laser uplinks at all - clouds, mist and such.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/14/2022 04:12 am
No I meant what is the radio bandwidth currently. Not thinking about laser uplinks at all - clouds, mist and such.
The total available Ka bandwidth between a teleport and a single satellite is approximately 2 GHz, based on the slide from the French regulatory approval posted here yesterday. I doubt you can get much more than 3 bits/Hz (e.g., 16QAM, FEC .5) but maybe I'm being pessimistic. That would get you 6 Gbps.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/14/2022 05:06 am
No I meant what is the radio bandwidth currently. Not thinking about laser uplinks at all - clouds, mist and such.
The total available Ka bandwidth between a teleport and a single satellite is approximately 2 GHz, based on the slide from the French regulatory approval posted here yesterday. I doubt you can get much more than 3 bits/Hz (e.g., 16QAM, FEC .5) but maybe I'm being pessimistic. That would get you 6 Gbps.
SpaceX uses 6 bits/hz. So their data bandwidth is 12Gbps for the Ka band. They are running the same on Ku band. Also they use circular polarization to double the total again. Unfortunately though that is the raw bit bandwidth. They also do some level of bit error correction which reduces the practical bandwidth. All of this is the V1.0 sat. The Gen 2 supposedly uses the same RF modulation strategies. But it would generate multiple spots as 4 to 8 more than the V1 sats.

A side note is that 2Ghz is shared for both uplink and downlink. So if evenly split 1Ghz up 1Ghz down. They cannot be the same frequency since the comm system is running what is called full duplex. Simultaneously transmit and receive.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 06/14/2022 05:50 am
No I meant what is the radio bandwidth currently. Not thinking about laser uplinks at all - clouds, mist and such.
The total available Ka bandwidth between a teleport and a single satellite is approximately 2 GHz, based on the slide from the French regulatory approval posted here yesterday. I doubt you can get much more than 3 bits/Hz (e.g., 16QAM, FEC .5) but maybe I'm being pessimistic. That would get you 6 Gbps.
SpaceX uses 6 bits/hz. So their data bandwidth is 12Gbps for the Ka band. They are running the same on Ku band. Also they use circular polarization to double the total again. Unfortunately though that is the raw bit bandwidth. They also do some level of bit error correction which reduces the practical bandwidth. All of this is the V1.0 sat. The Gen 2 supposedly uses the same RF modulation strategies. But it would generate multiple spots as 4 to 8 more than the V1 sats.

A side note is that 2Ghz is shared for both uplink and downlink. So if evenly split 1Ghz up 1Ghz down. They cannot be the same frequency since the comm system is running what is called full duplex. Simultaneously transmit and receive.

I know the user terminals were single handed polarization currently. Do the teleports use both left and right polarization?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/14/2022 03:14 pm
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1536728302332919808

Quote
Spectrum coordination agreement between SpaceX and OneWeb:

"...by working together and ensuring that first-round systems are protected, the Parties have been able to drive more productive use of scarce spectrum resources for the benefit of American consumers and businesses.”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 06/14/2022 03:53 pm
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1536728302332919808

Quote
Spectrum coordination agreement between SpaceX and OneWeb:

"...by working together and ensuring that first-round systems are protected, the Parties have been able to drive more productive use of scarce spectrum resources for the benefit of American consumers and businesses.”

Would now be a good time to recall the discussion around SpaceX’s decision to help Oneweb launch their satellites after the Russian debacle?

Certain people got rather upset when I suggested that it was not in SpaceX’s long term interest to do so. Not if launch revenue and a handshake of appreciation was all they got from it.

Perhaps we now know what else they bargained for before helping out their neighbour🤷‍♂️.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Rondaz on 06/14/2022 09:20 pm
Great example of the cooperation in space that benefits both sides.

https://twitter.com/katlinegrey/status/1536738038478430215
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 06/15/2022 05:21 am
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1536728302332919808

Quote
Spectrum coordination agreement between SpaceX and OneWeb:

"...by working together and ensuring that first-round systems are protected, the Parties have been able to drive more productive use of scarce spectrum resources for the benefit of American consumers and businesses.”

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1536903848127873025

Quote
This OneWeb-SpaceX agreement has been under consideration for roughly a year and a half, per a person familiar
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 06/16/2022 02:14 am
Quote
Spectrum coordination agreement between SpaceX and OneWeb:
"...by working together and ensuring that first-round systems are protected, the Parties have been able to drive more productive use of scarce spectrum resources for the benefit of American consumers and businesses.”
Quote from: Joey Roulette
This OneWeb-SpaceX agreement has been under consideration for roughly a year and a half, per a person familiar
It is usually better, faster and cheaper to keep the lawyers and the courts/commissions involvement to a minimum.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 06/19/2022 02:36 am
SpaceX made a surprising peace deal [with OneWeb] to focus its satellite fight with Amazon (https://qz.com/emails/space-business/2178264/spacex-made-a-surprising-peace-deal-to-focus-its-satellite-fight-with-amazon/)

Quote from: qz.com
Several experts who could not speak on the record because of their work on these two projects said this surprising agreement is driven by the companies’ fear of Kuiper, Amazon’s forthcoming internet satellite constellation, abetted by OneWeb’s new dependency on SpaceX for access to space.

<snip>

Tim Farrar, a satellite industry consultant who has worked with OneWeb, published a report on Starlink this week that estimated 2026 revenues at $3.5 billion, a fairly extraordinary number. If neither Starlink nor Kuiper are cancelled by then, due to a recession affecting SpaceX’s fundraising or Amazon’s vast capital expenditures, he predicts they will spend the latter half of the decade in a knock-down fight to sell cheap connectivity—and the rest of the industry had better watch out.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 06/19/2022 03:10 am
SpaceX made a surprising peace deal [with OneWeb] to focus its satellite fight with Amazon (https://qz.com/emails/space-business/2178264/spacex-made-a-surprising-peace-deal-to-focus-its-satellite-fight-with-amazon/)

Quote from: qz.com
Several experts who could not speak on the record because of their work on these two projects said this surprising agreement is driven by the companies’ fear of Kuiper, Amazon’s forthcoming internet satellite constellation, abetted by OneWeb’s new dependency on SpaceX for access to space.

<snip>

Tim Farrar, a satellite industry consultant who has worked with OneWeb, published a report on Starlink this week that estimated 2026 revenues at $3.5 billion, a fairly extraordinary number. If neither Starlink nor Kuiper are cancelled by then, due to a recession affecting SpaceX’s fundraising or Amazon’s vast capital expenditures, he predicts they will spend the latter half of the decade in a knock-down fight to sell cheap connectivity—and the rest of the industry had better watch out.
Tim Farrar is not a name that is creditable regarding Starlink and LEO connstellations.  ::)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 06/19/2022 03:19 am
Tim Farrar is not a name that is creditable regarding Starlink and LEO connstellations.  ::)

Yeah, but it's entertaining to see him keep moving the goal post...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 06/19/2022 03:21 am
SpaceX made a surprising peace deal [with OneWeb] to focus its satellite fight with Amazon (https://qz.com/emails/space-business/2178264/spacex-made-a-surprising-peace-deal-to-focus-its-satellite-fight-with-amazon/)

Quote from: qz.com
Several experts who could not speak on the record because of their work on these two projects said this surprising agreement is driven by the companies’ fear of Kuiper, Amazon’s forthcoming internet satellite constellation, abetted by OneWeb’s new dependency on SpaceX for access to space.

<snip>

Tim Farrar, a satellite industry consultant who has worked with OneWeb, published a report on Starlink this week that estimated 2026 revenues at $3.5 billion, a fairly extraordinary number. If neither Starlink nor Kuiper are cancelled by then, due to a recession affecting SpaceX’s fundraising or Amazon’s vast capital expenditures, he predicts they will spend the latter half of the decade in a knock-down fight to sell cheap connectivity—and the rest of the industry had better watch out.
Tim Farrar is not a name that is creditable regarding Starlink and LEO connstellations.  ::)

Indeed. For years he has proclaimed Starlink’s imminent demise. If he is now projecting $3.5B revenue for Starlink in 2026, you might as well multiply that by a factor of 3.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 06/22/2022 04:56 am
NASA, SpaceX to test satellite crash-prevention strategies (https://spacenews.com/nasa-spacex-to-test-satellite-crash-prevention-strategies/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
Through the Starling mission, NASA and SpaceX will begin testing strategies for preventing autonomous satellites from crashing into each other.

NASA originally planned to send the Starling mission into an orbital altitude of 555 kilometers. Because SpaceX Starlink broadband satellites operate in that orbit, the space agency’s Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) group advised Starling mission managers to send the four Starling cubesats 10 kilometers higher.

“Realizing that these two constellations are close to each other gave us an opportunity to look at how we will deal with space traffic management in the future, when there are even more spacecraft in low Earth orbit,” said Howard Cannon, NASA Starling project manager at the NASA Ames Research Center. “How can we avoid collisions given the number of spacecraft that will be up there?”
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gemmy0I on 06/22/2022 05:59 pm
NASA, SpaceX to test satellite crash-prevention strategies (https://spacenews.com/nasa-spacex-to-test-satellite-crash-prevention-strategies/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
Through the Starling mission, NASA and SpaceX will begin testing strategies for preventing autonomous satellites from crashing into each other.

NASA originally planned to send the Starling mission into an orbital altitude of 555 kilometers. Because SpaceX Starlink broadband satellites operate in that orbit, the space agency’s Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) group advised Starling mission managers to send the four Starling cubesats 10 kilometers higher.

“Realizing that these two constellations are close to each other gave us an opportunity to look at how we will deal with space traffic management in the future, when there are even more spacecraft in low Earth orbit,” said Howard Cannon, NASA Starling project manager at the NASA Ames Research Center. “How can we avoid collisions given the number of spacecraft that will be up there?”
Ha. Coordination between "Starling" and "Starlink" should lead to some verbally interesting telephone conversations... ::)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 06/22/2022 06:09 pm
Ha. Coordination between "Starling" and "Starlink" should lead to some verbally interesting telephone conversations... ::)
Hey, G here, how's K ?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 06/22/2022 06:27 pm
NASA, SpaceX to test satellite crash-prevention strategies (https://spacenews.com/nasa-spacex-to-test-satellite-crash-prevention-strategies/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
Through the Starling mission, NASA and SpaceX will begin testing strategies for preventing autonomous satellites from crashing into each other.

NASA originally planned to send the Starling mission into an orbital altitude of 555 kilometers. Because SpaceX Starlink broadband satellites operate in that orbit, the space agency’s Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) group advised Starling mission managers to send the four Starling cubesats 10 kilometers higher.

“Realizing that these two constellations are close to each other gave us an opportunity to look at how we will deal with space traffic management in the future, when there are even more spacecraft in low Earth orbit,” said Howard Cannon, NASA Starling project manager at the NASA Ames Research Center. “How can we avoid collisions given the number of spacecraft that will be up there?”
Ha. Coordination between "Starling" and "Starlink" should lead to some verbally interesting telephone conversations... ::)

And even email and text since "Starling" is a common autocorrect typo for "Starlink."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 07/02/2022 03:51 am
SpaceX's Starlink satellites will help improve space weather forecasts amid sun's unpredictable activity (https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-helps-noaa-space-weather-forecast)

Quote from: space.com
But when NOAA started modeling the response of the thermosphere to incoming blasts of particles from the sun that form the solar wind, they found there wasn't enough data to feed their model.

"We want to capture the physics from the ground all the way to space," Fang said. "But we don't have a sufficient data sample. The lower atmosphere model tells you exactly that it's going to rain tomorrow because they have all sorts of measurements from balloons and airplanes available to them. We don't have that. We don't have many satellites flying in situ providing information."

<snip>

"To improve our model and the forecast system, we really need to bring in more data," Fang said. "And that's what SpaceX promised us. They will share with us the orbit information of their satellites to help us estimate the drag. Since they have so many satellites, they will give us a lot of data points."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Clavin on 07/08/2022 04:09 pm
https://twitter.com/Silent_Yachts/status/1545403814194384896
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Teppich on 07/09/2022 05:48 pm
There are some angles available on a Starlink Gen 2 satellite in Tim Dodd's latest Starbase video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7MQb9Y4FAE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7MQb9Y4FAE)

It's large, reaction wheels, and star trackers are visible, plus all the things I don't know.

The sat rests on two pickup points in the middle of the short edges. I wonder how this will be integrated with their dispenser, or if it's just for ground handling
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/11/2022 05:55 am
https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1546340836413022209

Quote
Overall reliability leaves something to be desired but SpaceX is definitely making progress! 89.7% of all the Starlink satellites SpaceX has ever launched are still in orbit & working.

Excluding prototypes: 92%
Starlink V1.5: 95.5%
Starlink V1.5 w/out the solar storm fluke: 99%
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: geza on 07/11/2022 07:29 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1535394359373443073

Quote
Starlink inter-satellite laser links should be operational by end of year. This will dramatically reduce global latency.

Light travels ~40% faster in vacuum/air than in fiber optic cables & satellite path length is shorter (cables follow coastlines).

We know from the FCC fillings that SpaceX expects to have continuous telemetry from the first (almost) orbital flight of Starship/Super Heavy via Starlink. The flight is expected to happen quite soon, maybe in August (Elon time). It is difficult to imagine such coverage over the Pacific without using the inter-satellite links. So, even if it will be operational on the system level only by the end of the year, they hope to use a few laser links to cover the first orbital flight much earlier.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: geza on 07/11/2022 12:19 pm
Another option. The Starlink satellite, if cannot transmit the received telemetry immediately, may store it until connected to a base station. Is it feasible? 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/11/2022 04:54 pm
Another option. The Starlink satellite, if cannot transmit the received telemetry immediately, may store it until connected to a base station. Is it feasible?
Yes, it's theoretically feasible to add this to a Starlink V2.2 satellite, but we do not know if SpaceX did this. It costs  a modest amount of SWaP (size weight and Power), primarily in the satellite's data forwarding system. I think the biggest cost is the added software complexity, which becomes decreased reliability unless you are very careful.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 07/11/2022 05:32 pm
For Starlink V1.5 and V2 store-and-forward does not make any sense given it has ISL.
It only theoretically made sense for V1.0 without ISL.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 07/11/2022 07:01 pm
If Starlink is internet-router-like, it is all store and forward.  Going from store and forward in a few ms to store and forward in a few tens of minutes may just require a larger timeout value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: toren on 07/11/2022 07:08 pm
FWIW, this post coming to you via Starlink. Getting 55 mb down / 13 up at 43 North (southern Idaho). Likely not optimized yet since it's been running for 30 minutes.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 07/11/2022 08:49 pm
If Starlink is internet-router-like, it is all store and forward.  Going from store and forward in a few ms to store and forward in a few tens of minutes may just require a larger timeout value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers)
Not the same - You'd need a capability to establish a connection with the satellite itself, send and store your data. Later the satellite would dump it to a gateway. Remember, if you are in the middle of nowhere, you can not even establish the connection.
It's not as simple as getting a bigger buffer.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/11/2022 09:11 pm
For Starlink V1.5 and V2 store-and-forward does not make any sense given it has ISL.
It only theoretically made sense for V1.0 without ISL.
Yes

Although there are a few TB of packet buffers. THEY ARE NOT STORE AND FORWARD. They are there to handle congestion an short term dropouts. They attempt to send to targets already established although slightly delayed. After a certain amount of time they would report back to the sources if possible that the packet was undelivered. And the packet would be erased. Store and forward requires that the store and forward system operate as if it is the original creator of the message. To handle the receipt of ACKs and resend a packet if required without involving the original sender of the packet. That is a lot of overhead. Simple buffers just temporarily store a packet awaiting transmission along a already identified network path. Here is the calc of how long of a period a dropout can be handled by a 1TB of buffer space at a throughput level of 10Gbps = ~800 seconds. Or ~13 minutes of data before the buffer overflows. But that total amount of buffer space is broken up into individual hardware storage buffers for each transmission stream so the actual time before buffer overflows happen is much shorter such as in 30 seconds if the total buffer space is 1TB. Such that once a dropout lasts at close to that duration the user terminals will start receiving notification by the sat that they are connected to a loss of Internet (or the Starlink wide Network) connection.

A side note for this upcoming high risk environment on the Starship orbital test is that the source of the data is unlikely to exist to retransmit later. Such that a sat internal failure that causes it to drop its data connection into the Starlink Network permanently would make the Starship believe that its data is safe when it is not. The best would be for Starship to immediately switch to another sat that still has network wide connection. This is a primary problem with the Store and Forward Protocol is that it is not suitable for situations where the data is not accessible or have any other method of retrieval if something goes wrong along the way. It is better to have redundant paths and not a single path unless very long distances is what the Store and Forward is dealing with such as communication with Mars.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 07/11/2022 09:45 pm
There are two store-and-forward definitions clashing here.
There's the packet switching switch architecture one:
- store-and-forward - receive packet into internal memory, verify checksums, (prioritize and) route it, forward to destination while reading from memory. Most switches tend to do this.
- cut-through switching, where the packet is NOT checked for checksums and is routed immediately as soon as headers arrive.

Then there's the other definition of store-and-forward: Like e-mail and others. You establish connection to a server, talk to it, send data, the servers ACKs it, you disconnect. Then the server starts sending the data to some another node.

Think Mars orbiters. Rover connects to MRO, sends its data. MRO waits until it can see Earth and then sends its data when link established.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 07/11/2022 10:45 pm
If Starlink is internet-router-like, it is all store and forward.  Going from store and forward in a few ms to store and forward in a few tens of minutes may just require a larger timeout value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers)
Not the same - You'd need a capability to establish a connection with the satellite itself, send and store your data. Later the satellite would dump it to a gateway. Remember, if you are in the middle of nowhere, you can not even establish the connection.
It's not as simple as getting a bigger buffer.
Look up connectionless protocol, which constitutes most of the internet (including http).

Lots of protocols send packets blind with no connection and no expectation of an ACK from the eventual destination.  As long as the intermediates definition of "best available effort delivery" does not include timing out the packet they will (probably) get to their destination. 

Sure it's not 100% guaranteed, but 99% or 90% chance of getting your black box data easily is a lot better than not trying or having to always send in divers and hoping the armor was good enough.

Short term drop-out is defined in the routers.  If you redefine it as a couple of hours it will work fine.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: launchwatcher on 07/12/2022 01:13 am
There are two store-and-forward definitions clashing here.
There's the packet switching switch architecture one:
- store-and-forward - receive packet into internal memory, verify checksums, (prioritize and) route it, forward to destination while reading from memory. Most switches tend to do this.
- cut-through switching, where the packet is NOT checked for checksums and is routed immediately as soon as headers arrive.

Then there's the other definition of store-and-forward: Like e-mail and others. You establish connection to a server, talk to it, send data, the servers ACKs it, you disconnect. Then the server starts sending the data to some another node.

Think Mars orbiters. Rover connects to MRO, sends its data. MRO waits until it can see Earth and then sends its data when link established.
A couple other points on why short-term packet store-and-forward is best kept very short term (sub-second).

1) at any given level of technology, memory speed & cost tend to be inversely correlated - the fastest memories are expensive and small capacity; the cheapest memories are slow.   Packet buffers in high-speed networking equipment generally must be made out of fast memory; economical designs will only make them as big as necessary and will not have room to store terabytes of packets for minutes or hours.

2) excessive buffering in Internet routers leads to retransmission dynamics that end up making network congestion worse (the buzzword for this is "bufferbloat"); if a router can't promptly send a packet on its way it's best for everyone on the network if you just drop it instead of adding it to the backlog.

however:

3) packet-level cut-through is actually not inconsistent with verifying checksums; ethernet devices which do cut-through forwarding can "stomp" the CRC in an outgoing packet once they observe a bad checksum or any other issue with an incoming packet, ensuring that it will be discarded when it reaches a non-cut-through device.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/12/2022 04:29 am
If ISL is slated to go on line in the near future doesn't that mean they're testing it now? Sure, not full coverage yet but ya got what ya got. Does the Air Force/Space Command normally have ships around the missile test range?


Don't recall that the Navy has publicly expressed any interest in SL but it does sound like a natural. Slip them a few sets and there'd be coverage in he western Pacific and across the Atlantic.


Then there are those European countries that have service and ground stations. Australia and New Zealand. The coverage might not be 100% and it might not all be real time but...


Worst case, put a data logger on the ship and dump when you can.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/12/2022 06:12 pm
Worst case, put a data logger on the ship and dump when you can.
Worst case: put a data logger in the ship and recover it after the crash. That's what the airline industry does with "black boxes", which are actually bright orange.

Of course, Starship should do all of the above: transmit in real-time, store and transmit after a blackout, AND use a black box. The incremental cost in size weight and power is trivial.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 07/14/2022 01:50 am
There are some angles available on a Starlink Gen 2 satellite in Tim Dodd's latest Starbase video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7MQb9Y4FAE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7MQb9Y4FAE)

It's large, reaction wheels, and star trackers are visible, plus all the things I don't know.

The sat rests on two pickup points in the middle of the short edges. I wonder how this will be integrated with their dispenser, or if it's just for ground handling

Hrm, I think I see 3 ISL's?

The flatpack mounts are sorta like Gen 1.x, but what's interesting is the size of the spar that connects the two mounts through the bus body. I wonder if that's doing double duty as a propellant tank...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 07/17/2022 06:25 am
 Is there any indication of their priority once they get the first 4400 sats up? As in, start on the next step or replace shell 1 with ISL capable units?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 07/17/2022 06:04 pm
 Looking at Jonathan's site, they haven't lost a single sat in the last 523 launched.
 They're getting good at this.
https://planet4589.org/space/stats/star/starstats.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/18/2022 01:52 am
Is there anywhere other than periodic statements from SpaceX where one can track the latest number of Starlink subscribers?

Last I heard it was around 500k - as at about a month or so ago. I’m really interested in how fast it continues to grow.

That’s a very transparent way to assess at least one source of SpaceX direct cash inflows, since we know the monthly subscription fee.

Is it fair to assume that subscriber growth is at least moderately correlated with the satellite launch rate?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/18/2022 03:29 pm
Is there anywhere other than periodic statements from SpaceX where one can track the latest number of Starlink subscribers?

Last I heard it was around 500k - as at about a month or so ago. I’m really interested in how fast it continues to grow.

That’s a very transparent way to assess at least one source of SpaceX direct cash inflows, since we know the monthly subscription fee.

Is it fair to assume that subscriber growth is at least moderately correlated with the satellite launch rate?
ISTM the tightest correlation is sat launch rate and potential customers. There's a lot of variables between potential and actual, things like receiver production rate and population density. We'll probably never see numbers for military or Ukraine.


Keep us posted if you get customer numbers. It's interesting. Probably receiver limited.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 07/18/2022 03:36 pm
Is there anywhere other than periodic statements from SpaceX where one can track the latest number of Starlink subscribers?

Last I heard it was around 500k - as at about a month or so ago. I’m really interested in how fast it continues to grow.

That’s a very transparent way to assess at least one source of SpaceX direct cash inflows, since we know the monthly subscription fee.

Is it fair to assume that subscriber growth is at least moderately correlated with the satellite launch rate?

If you want to extrapolate, Gerstenmaier mentioned a terminal build rate of 20000 a week (https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/spacex-building-airline-type-flight-ops-launch) not to long ago.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/18/2022 05:22 pm
Is there anywhere other than periodic statements from SpaceX where one can track the latest number of Starlink subscribers?

Last I heard it was around 500k - as at about a month or so ago. I’m really interested in how fast it continues to grow.

That’s a very transparent way to assess at least one source of SpaceX direct cash inflows, since we know the monthly subscription fee.

Is it fair to assume that subscriber growth is at least moderately correlated with the satellite launch rate?

If you want to extrapolate, Gerstenmaier mentioned a terminal build rate of 20000 a week (https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/spacex-building-airline-type-flight-ops-launch) not to long ago.
The extrapolation would be is that Starlink worldwide operations could be break even point in 2023 year of operations between revenue from subscriptions and spending. Spending includes sat manufacture and launch, new terminal cost subsidy, Gateways installation, and operation support expenses. In 2024 could be cash positive by $1B. Revenue growth would be a steady $1B / year unless  terminal manufacture rates increase from what they are now. Even if they do not the cash positive level in 2030 could be ~$7B. Makeing Starlink by itself an ~$100B valuation (market cap) business.

But I think though that SpaceX will reinvest most of that extra cash to accelerate the expansion a growth of the subscriber base as well as providing broadband services to large organizations in fixed multi year contracts. Some of that has already begun.

A side note is that this year SpaceX could spen as much as $840M in cost of Starlink launches. When most of the launches for Starlink specifically the V2 sats transfers to Starship that spending goes to cover the cost of launching Starships. Such that the Starship program could see in 2023 a $800M worth of re-alignment to spending against Starship operations and development.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 07/20/2022 11:46 am
This reddit post (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/w2d9e0/starlink_update_memo_confidential/) has 3 images that are supposed to be leaked Starlink Update presentation by SpaceX, which was sent to Starlink suppliers. Not sure I'm allowed to post it here, and it's unconfirmed obviously, so take anything in it with a grain of salt. Some interesting things mentioned:

1. V2/Gen1 user terminal has stopped production in first half of 2022
2. Currently building V3/Gen2 user terminal at 6k/day output
3. V4/Gen3 terminal in development for 2023 launch
4. Approaching 700k total terminals manufactured, suppliers supplied 20M+ v2 parts and 112M+ v3 parts
5. Starlink for RV has 30,000 orders
6. V3 gateway antenna production rate reduces to 15 antennas/week, sunset on November 18th
7. Currently developing V4 gateway, which will support V2.0 satellite.
8. V4 gateway uses new tech such as Traveling-Wave Tube Amplifier (TWTA), which enable use of e-band.
9. V4 antenna build rate will be 1-2/week in parallel with V3 gateway production, then after 11/18 they'll shutdown production line for 2 weeks to upgrade it to produce V4 gateway at 5/week. Targeting 50 V4 antennas for 2022, including development units.
10. In first half of 2022 building V1.5 satellites at 35-40 per week. 11 Starlink launches between June and August.
11. 2 new buildings at Redmond to support V2.0 satellite production, one for satellite and laser, the other for solar and battery.
12. V2.0 satellite will have 6x throughput vs V1.5 satellite, first one shipped to Starbase on March 17, 2022. Completed stress test of V2.0 production line.
13. Currently has 1,360 gateway antennas deployed in 36 countries and territories.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 07/20/2022 01:14 pm
Here's my new estimation for user terminal deployments:

25.08.2021: 100k + 11k/mo based on Elon comments to NASDAQ
01.11.2021: 140k + 11k/mo official data from SpaceX
25.02.2022: 250k presented by Jonathan Hofeller at Satellite 2022
10.06.2022: 500k + 80k/mo from Gerst interview
20.07.2022: 700k + 160k/mo according to Reddit leaks

The supposed leak certainly tracks and puts current revenue at ~$1 billion a year. My prediction for year end 2022 would be between 1.7 million and 2.5 million deployed terminals, for >$2.5 billion in recurring revenue.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/20/2022 02:04 pm
$1 billion per year revenue… is substantial enough that it probably could handle Starlink paying for itself if it stayed at the smaller initial constellation and the satellites lasted 5-6 years.

Of course, not enough for the much larger constellation and the development of Starship. But $2.5 billion per year would be enough to start paying for that.

SpaceX has 12,000 employees roughly. At $100,000 each, that’s $1.2 billion, but there’s also materials, outsourced components (they don’t make solar cells or actual silicon chips or PCBs, etc, plus some assemblies are made by other companies if the price is right) plus buildings and rent, so probably they need twice that, about $2 billion per year, to pay for the current company and staffing levels. Although that includes a lot of revenue from NASA and the military for Dragon, F9 and FH launches, plus commercial launches and HLS.

SpaceX is still in growth mode. But they’re starting to make *substantial* revenue from Starlink already. And why wouldn’t they? A company like Comcast has revenues of like $64 billion per year from telecommunications services (mostly broadband, cable TV, and a little phone).

I don’t see why SpaceX couldn’t manage, say, $40 billion in annual Starlink revenue with the larger v2 constellation. About 100 times the throughput  (full numbers deployed, 30,000-40,000 instead
of ~2000-3000, 6 times the throughput per satellite, more geographic distribution of service and laser links, both meaning more efficient use of the existing bandwidth, etc) of their current satellites today, without a substantially larger workforce.

In fact, by retiring F9 and FH, they could keep the workforce about the same as today. Of course, no reason to retire those just yet as they’re still taking in orders for the latter half of the 2020s, and F9 is now the most reliable vehicle ever, in terms of consecutive successful launches.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Redclaws on 07/20/2022 02:21 pm
A $100,000/year total employment cost seems low by 50-100% based on past discussions, doesn’t it?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/20/2022 02:42 pm
A $100,000/year total employment cost seems low by 50-100% based on past discussions, doesn’t it?
Maybe if you’re counting just engineers, sure, but this counts everyone at the company, including technicians and janitors and secretaries. And much of the compensation is in the form of stock, ie future growth of the company. But sure, I agree the full costs are more like $180,000 per person, total of $2 billion per year, but that’s double-counting some stuff I counted later.

Anyway, still just an order of magnitude thing, here.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/20/2022 02:47 pm
A $100,000/year total employment cost seems low by 50-100% based on past discussions, doesn’t it?
What percentage of the employees work at gateways in other countries?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 07/20/2022 03:18 pm
A $100,000/year total employment cost seems low by 50-100% based on past discussions, doesn’t it?
What percentage of the employees work at gateways in other countries?

That would round down to 0%.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ulm_atms on 07/20/2022 10:27 pm
I figured this should go here.

https://twitter.com/CosmicalChief/status/1549213709469360128
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/21/2022 02:26 am
One of my recent evaluations of the Starlink spending vs revenue cash flow was that when Starlink puled in a total of ~$2B it would be a break even. That includes a very aggressive V2 sat deployment pace. Such that once the average for a 1 year period of time the number subscribers reached almost at 2 million, SpaceX would become self sufficient in it's cash flow. No longer needing much in the way of additional venture capitol to keep it growing.

From this info if correct SpaceX could reach that point on or before mid 2023. My original estimate was that they would not reach that point of almost an average of 2M subscribers until end of year 2023. They seem to be moving much faster ahead than what I thought.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 07/21/2022 04:24 am
<snip>
From this info if correct SpaceX could reach that point on or before mid 2023. My original estimate was that they would not reach that point of almost an average of 2M subscribers until end of year 2023. They seem to be moving much faster ahead than what I thought.
Don't think your evaluation of Starlink subscribers growth was wrong. However there was the very many assists from Russia.

After they hacked the Viasat network and bricked a lot of terminals as prelude to their Ukrainian adventures. Which causes Ukraine to authorized flash Starlink deployment by tweet for extreme field tests. That showcase the Starlink Network robustness and reliability in a harsh hostile operating environment. Free advertisements that you couldn't buy. AFAIK Starlink don't spend much or any money on ads.

The Russians also cause many users migrating to Starlink from other internet services in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Which bumps up the Starlink subscriber count.

Additionally the Ukrainian conflict accelerated the introduction of mobile, aviation & maritime services with Starlink, IMO. Allowing Starlink to reach more users earlier.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 07/21/2022 05:07 am
<snip>
From this info if correct SpaceX could reach that point on or before mid 2023. My original estimate was that they would not reach that point of almost an average of 2M subscribers until end of year 2023. They seem to be moving much faster ahead than what I thought.
Don't think your evaluation of Starlink subscribers growth was wrong. However there was the very many assists from Russia.

After they hacked the Viasat network and bricked a lot of terminals as prelude to their Ukrainian adventures. Which causes Ukraine to authorized flash Starlink deployment by tweet for extreme field tests. That showcase the Starlink Network robustness and reliability in a harsh hostile operating environment. Free advertisements that you couldn't buy. AFAIK Starlink don't spend much or any money on ads.

The Russians also cause many users migrating to Starlink from other internet services in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Which bumps up the Starlink subscriber count.

Additionally the Ukrainian conflict accelerated the introduction of mobile, aviation & maritime services with Starlink, IMO. Allowing Starlink to reach more users earlier.
They're not talking about users. They're talking about subscribers. And those are determined solely by how many terminals they're making. Russia and Ukraine have nothing to do with it. They'll make more terminals and add more customers as they have capacity to serve them. Demand is not an issue yet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: starsilk on 07/21/2022 09:05 pm
Does anybody have some recent numbers on starlink performance, particularly in Colorado or the Denver metro area? I just got the 'pay up or shut up' email and I'm trying to figure out whether it's worth it.

Some light googling shows many complaints recently that the days of the 100 mbit+ speeds are gone and you're lucky if you get 30... some complaining of as low as 10 mbit and horrible latency during peak hours. I'm already on a WISP giving me 35 (most of the time), might be better off just sticking with them if the complaints are true.

The downside is if I don't take it now I'll be looking at probably two more years before they offer it again (reserved early 2021).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/21/2022 10:02 pm
Does anybody have some recent numbers on starlink performance, particularly in Colorado or the Denver metro area? I just got the 'pay up or shut up' email and I'm trying to figure out whether it's worth it.

Some light googling shows many complaints recently that the days of the 100 mbit+ speeds are gone and you're lucky if you get 30... some complaining of as low as 10 mbit and horrible latency during peak hours. I'm already on a WISP giving me 35 (most of the time), might be better off just sticking with them if the complaints are true.

The downside is if I don't take it now I'll be looking at probably two more years before they offer it again (reserved early 2021).
It's a bit hard to predict what Starlink speeds will be in the future with V2.2 satellites. There will be more total bandwidth, but there will also be more users. You will share the user spot across a smaller spot, and with ISL your date can reach a whole lot more gateways, which spreads temporal peaks. Bottom line: who knows?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: starsilk on 07/21/2022 10:11 pm
Does anybody have some recent numbers on starlink performance, particularly in Colorado or the Denver metro area? I just got the 'pay up or shut up' email and I'm trying to figure out whether it's worth it.

Some light googling shows many complaints recently that the days of the 100 mbit+ speeds are gone and you're lucky if you get 30... some complaining of as low as 10 mbit and horrible latency during peak hours. I'm already on a WISP giving me 35 (most of the time), might be better off just sticking with them if the complaints are true.

The downside is if I don't take it now I'll be looking at probably two more years before they offer it again (reserved early 2021).
It's a bit hard to predict what Starlink speeds will be in the future with V2.2 satellites. There will be more total bandwidth, but there will also be more users. You will share the user spot across a smaller spot, and with ISL your date can reach a whole lot more gateways, which spreads temporal peaks. Bottom line: who knows?

I'm not asking about the future. Realistically v2 satellites won't be up there in any useful numbers for the next 18 months.

I'm interested in 'right now' and more specifically the reported fact that average speeds in the continental US seem to have fallen off a cliff over the last quarter for many users (to between 10 and 20% of what they were before) - and trying to see if this is just a few users complaining or a real issue.

If the dish is going to give me 100 mbit most of the time, dropping to 30 at peak or randomly some points of the day, that's great. If I'm looking at 30 mbit dropping to 5 or 10.. I'm better off without it. Sadly I'm dependent on other users in this area for that information - the only other way to tell is to put down (non-refundable) $600 plus $100/month to find out.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: hane on 07/21/2022 10:35 pm
Bandwidth is definitely down from what it was before. I am in a rural area and am averaging around 35 Mbps down these days. I have done extensive network tests and the problem beyond that is the many fluctuations. It will download 100 Mbps for a couple seconds and then can quickly drop to less than 10 Mbps if it switches satellites (there is a 15 second schedule in which it decides if it will switch satellites or not). During the handover there is buffering which causes a spike in latency and makes bufferbloat hard to control. I wouldn't actually mind the 35 Mbps average if it was just more consistent without latency spikes.

Now, all this being said, Starlink is much better than my old DSL so for those with few options, it is great. But if you have a reliable connection with consistent latency < 50 ms I would rather have that at 35 Mbps. But if your WISP also has similar latency spikes and slow speeds during peak hours then I would consider Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 07/21/2022 11:39 pm
Does anybody have some recent numbers on starlink performance, particularly in Colorado or the Denver metro area? I just got the 'pay up or shut up' email and I'm trying to figure out whether it's worth it.

Some light googling shows many complaints recently that the days of the 100 mbit+ speeds are gone and you're lucky if you get 30... some complaining of as low as 10 mbit and horrible latency during peak hours. I'm already on a WISP giving me 35 (most of the time), might be better off just sticking with them if the complaints are true.

The downside is if I don't take it now I'll be looking at probably two more years before they offer it again (reserved early 2021).

If you have reliable 35 with no caps then I'd advise sticking with it. Starlink is meant to compete with Viasat and Hughes or crappy DSL and cellular. For instance, on Viasat I am lucky to get 3 down off peak and I have a 100 gig "soft" cap. Right now the worst Starlink rates I'm seeing beat that, and for cheaper.

But if I had a reliable WISP available and didn't have to bother with figuring out pole height to get above my treeline plus rain fade I'd definitely stick with the WISP.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/22/2022 03:59 pm
Is there any guesses on current buildout adding bandwidth vs new users coming on line? Does adding 10% more birds with lasers add 10% more deliverable bandwidth? More? Less?







Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/22/2022 04:24 pm
Is there any guesses on current buildout adding bandwidth vs new users coming on line? Does adding 10% more birds with lasers add 10% more deliverable bandwidth? More? Less?
I suspect that adding birds with lasers is a sort of compounding effect when it comes to global user numbers, at least at first.

I also suspect that over the long term, bandwidth needs per user will increase somewhat.

I think assuming subscriber capacity in a region scaling linearly with aggregate satellite bandwidth is probably a good enough estimate.

Adding new regions, especially if not immediately bordering existing saturated service areas, should increase global users significantly even assuming constant satellite capability and numbers.

So I suspect with lasers and filling out with V1.5 birds should bring subscriber revenue to a profitable level. V2 is a whole ‘nother level, making Starlink a cash cow.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/22/2022 04:45 pm
Is there any guesses on current buildout adding bandwidth vs new users coming on line? Does adding 10% more birds with lasers add 10% more deliverable bandwidth? More? Less?
In general, adding a single satellite with a new capability gets you nothing. That's because satellites move in their orbits and the earth turns under the planes, so you use a different satellite every three minutes or so, and over the course of about a month you will be using all of the satellites, including the old ones, for some three-minute periods.  Oversimplifying a bit, if the satellites are heterogeneous, your service would vary as you jump between satellites with different capabilities.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/22/2022 05:53 pm
Is there any guesses on current buildout adding bandwidth vs new users coming on line? Does adding 10% more birds with lasers add 10% more deliverable bandwidth? More? Less?
In general, adding a single satellite with a new capability gets you nothing. That's because satellites move in their orbits and the earth turns under the planes, so you use a different satellite every three minutes or so, and over the course of about a month you will be using all of the satellites, including the old ones, for some three-minute periods.  Oversimplifying a bit, if the satellites are heterogeneous, your service would vary as you jump between satellites with different capabilities.
It’s best to think of it somewhat stochastically (since bandwidth demand is also somewhat stochastic). One satellite added will tend to increase the available bandwidth by a certain amount on average.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: r1279 on 07/22/2022 09:01 pm
Is there any guesses on current buildout adding bandwidth vs new users coming on line? Does adding 10% more birds with lasers add 10% more deliverable bandwidth? More? Less?
I suspect that adding birds with lasers is a sort of compounding effect when it comes to global user numbers, at least at first.

The V1.5 satellite laser-interlinks extend their reach and allow them to add profitable new customers [marine, airlines, etc.,] but at the same time all that aggregated inbound/outbound laser-interlink traffic is constrained by the amount of V1.X gateway uplink/downlink bandwidth available.

I suppose that traffic could be diverted to under-utilized satellites/gateways but I still wonder how restricted they'll be until V2 adds the additional E-band gateway frequencies [as well as some dual-use (gateway and user) in the lower ranges].  How much "local" customer traffic can these V1.X satellites service in terrestrial areas if they are also servicing remote traffic.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/22/2022 09:11 pm
Is there any guesses on current buildout adding bandwidth vs new users coming on line? Does adding 10% more birds with lasers add 10% more deliverable bandwidth? More? Less?
I suspect that adding birds with lasers is a sort of compounding effect when it comes to global user numbers, at least at first.

The V1.5 satellite laser-interlinks extend their reach and allow them to add profitable new customers [marine, airlines, etc.,] but at the same time all that aggregated inbound/outbound laser-interlink traffic is constrained by the amount of V1.X gateway uplink/downlink bandwidth available.

I suppose that traffic could be diverted to under-utilized satellites/gateways but I still wonder how restricted they'll be until V2 adds the additional E-band gateway frequencies [as well as some dual-use (gateway and user) in the lower ranges].  How much "local" customer traffic can these V1.X satellites service in terrestrial areas if they are also servicing remote traffic.
Exactly, with lasers they can pick under-utilized gateways to route traffic to if necessary. Also, for some applications, both the client and server side may have Starlink terminals so you COULD skip the gateway altogether and do peer to peer all over Starlink. This is a network effect that would happen very rarely at first but over time could be considerable.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/22/2022 09:25 pm
Is there any guesses on current buildout adding bandwidth vs new users coming on line? Does adding 10% more birds with lasers add 10% more deliverable bandwidth? More? Less?
I suspect that adding birds with lasers is a sort of compounding effect when it comes to global user numbers, at least at first.

The V1.5 satellite laser-interlinks extend their reach and allow them to add profitable new customers [marine, airlines, etc.,] but at the same time all that aggregated inbound/outbound laser-interlink traffic is constrained by the amount of V1.X gateway uplink/downlink bandwidth available.

I suppose that traffic could be diverted to under-utilized satellites/gateways but I still wonder how restricted they'll be until V2 adds the additional E-band gateway frequencies [as well as some dual-use (gateway and user) in the lower ranges].  How much "local" customer traffic can these V1.X satellites service in terrestrial areas if they are also servicing remote traffic.
One really big effect is levelling across timezones. In general there are time-of-day peaks, so if you can use ISL hops to jump across timezones you can find a gateway with available capacity.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/22/2022 10:09 pm
I think the ratio of ISL to total operational sats is close to ~40%. So local Gateways are still a significant factor of the subscriber/user density in an area and can have significant effect on practical bandwidth as numbers of subscriber/users go up in an area. As the percentage of ISL to the older non-ISL sats get better. This part of the problem is mitigated and approaches closer to the theoretical bandwidth available form the numbers of sats visible at a location divided by the number of concurrent active users.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 07/23/2022 07:44 am
Has anyone measured the correlation between packet loss and server proximity/routing that happens with Starlink? My general experience for upload is that sometimes it picks a bad IP route (not RF route, as I think they've overcome that part of the issues) and then bandwidth plummets due to packet drops or low packet rate due to buffer bloat.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: hane on 07/23/2022 01:00 pm
I don't think the packet loss is probably because of routing but rather RF, as I don't know why we would be getting that much packet loss on the post-gateway side.

Here's a high-resolution, fully loaded, latency test (every 3 ms):

(https://forum.openwrt.org/uploads/default/original/3X/a/9/a9a2cafa8be3083e6f2f67c7ec6a71eec6853921.jpeg)

Blue dots are receive latency, green dots are send latency (ms latency on the y axis). Red is total latency. Orange dots are % packet loss. This was taken at 4am local so the satellites should have been about as clear as they ever are.

The small brown dots on the bottom mark every 15 seconds where Starlink evaluates if it should switch satellites, and you can obviously see where the switches occur by how the latency changes abruptly.

So some 15 second blocks have significantly higher send latency as well as packet loss.

Total packet loss over the 5 minute test was 12.67% (this high-resolution test reveals a lot more packet loss than a standard ping test).

If someone has an idea of how to test packet loss on the post-gateway side I'm open to trying some sort of test to see if we can parse that out, but I think this is happening somewhere between dishy and the gateway.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 07/23/2022 03:13 pm
On 7/18, Viasat filed an ex-parte on Starlink's Gen2 application.  It seeks to clarify whether the Nco=1 assumption (i.e., that only one beam in a particular frequency will address the entire cell) is Nco=1 for the entire Gen1+Gen2 set of constellations or whether it will be Nco=1 for each of Gen1 and Gen2 (i.e., Nco=2 for the set).

Of course, Nco=2 for the set should increase top speeds and decrease obstructions rather substantially, so it will be interesting to see how SpaceX answers.

For the purposes of argument, Viasat further splits out Gen2 into tranches, and in the end does its calculations on an Nco=18.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/23/2022 03:33 pm
One virtue of ISL is a potential reduction of current gateways and reduced buildout as new countries accept service - I think. This would reduce capital investment and mildly increase cash flow.


Hrumph! Ninja'd by a half page of posts. Grumble, grumble.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/23/2022 03:41 pm
I don't think the packet loss is probably because of routing but rather RF, as I don't know why we would be getting that much packet loss on the post-gateway side.

Here's a high-resolution, fully loaded, latency test (every 3 ms):

(https://forum.openwrt.org/uploads/default/original/3X/a/9/a9a2cafa8be3083e6f2f67c7ec6a71eec6853921.jpeg)

Blue dots are receive latency, green dots are send latency (ms latency on the y axis). Red is total latency. Orange dots are % packet loss. This was taken at 4am local so the satellites should have been about as clear as they ever are.

The small brown dots on the bottom mark every 15 seconds where Starlink evaluates if it should switch satellites, and you can obviously see where the switches occur by how the latency changes abruptly.

So some 15 second blocks have significantly higher send latency as well as packet loss.

Total packet loss over the 5 minute test was 12.67% (this high-resolution test reveals a lot more packet loss than a standard ping test).

If someone has an idea of how to test packet loss on the post-gateway side I'm open to trying some sort of test to see if we can parse that out, but I think this is happening somewhere between dishy and the gateway.
Gotta wonder if bandwidth complaints are due to everybody hammering the system with tests. LoL.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/23/2022 04:17 pm
One virtue of ISL is a potential reduction of current gateways and reduced buildout as new countries accept service - I think. This would reduce capital investment and mildly increase cash flow.


Hrumph! Ninja'd by a half page of posts. Grumble, grumble.
It's more about gateway siting flexibility than it is about number of gateways. The initial gateway deployments for non-ISL satellites are driven by geographical coverage. After coverage is achieved and/or after ISL is implemented, the number of gateways starts to be driven by the required aggregate gateway bandwidth, but you are now free to site gateways where terrestrial back-haul is cheap and land is cheap with much less regard for area coverage. You still need to spread your gateways because you need to work with many satellites in order to implement enough links to achieve the aggregate bandwidth, but it no longer matters much where those satellites are located.  Things will get a bit crazier when SpaceX wants to route on ISL to minimize the use of long-haul fiber, but that's a slightly different topic.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: hane on 07/23/2022 06:05 pm
Gotta wonder if bandwidth complaints are due to everybody hammering the system with tests. LoL.

That was just for 5 minutes at 4am  :)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 07/23/2022 10:30 pm
I don't think the packet loss is probably because of routing but rather RF, as I don't know why we would be getting that much packet loss on the post-gateway side.

The reason I think it's routing is because sometimes it connects to a non-optimal ground station that's further from a CDN/Server and then packet loss increases due to pure distance, and then combine that with peak hour load and that's a recipe for disaster.

There's many reports that the worse peered a server is to a ground station, the higher the packet loss under ideal conditions.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: hane on 07/23/2022 10:40 pm

The reason I think it's routing is because sometimes it connects to a non-optimal ground station that's further from a CDN/Server and then packet loss increases due to pure distance, and then combine that with peak hour load and that's a recipe for disaster.

There's many reports that the worse peered a server is to a ground station, the higher the packet loss under ideal conditions.

Interesting, how do you test which ground station you are connecting to? I've looked at traceroutes but don't see any obvious way to tell which ground station it is going through. That would be interesting to see which ground station it is going through over time and see how that affects latency and packet loss.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 07/23/2022 10:43 pm
I'm simply correlating packet loss to distance to the destination server, since that seems to be a consistent correlation with Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 07/23/2022 10:56 pm
I don't think the packet loss is probably because of routing but rather RF, as I don't know why we would be getting that much packet loss on the post-gateway side.

The reason I think it's routing is because sometimes it connects to a non-optimal ground station that's further from a CDN/Server and then packet loss increases due to pure distance, and then combine that with peak hour load and that's a recipe for disaster.

There's many reports that the worse peered a server is to a ground station, the higher the packet loss under ideal conditions.

It's not so much the ground stations fault as the CDN for not locating you correctly. I remember when the first beta terminals came out, all IP addresses under Starlink were registered as being in Hawthorne, which caused people on the east coast to be connected to west coast servers for speed tests and show skewed results depending on location. A badly programmed CDN might connect you to a server physically close to you even though your ground station is next to a completely different datacenter. A while back, SpaceX announced their cooperation with some CDN providers, and Google is a major investor and source of IP geolocation data, so I would expect these issues to get better over time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 07/23/2022 11:28 pm
^That's what I'm counting on, but I have low hopes for AWS cooperating. And that's the backbone of Twitch.

I have noticed Steam Remote Play taking wacky routes over LTE and same would probably apply to Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/23/2022 11:33 pm
And add in ISL where the Gateway could be on the other side of Earth from the terminal.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Redclaws on 07/24/2022 12:09 am
… Also, for some applications, both the client and server side may have Starlink terminals so you COULD skip the gateway altogether and do peer to peer all over Starlink. This is a network effect that would happen very rarely at first but over time could be considerable.

Eh, what % of the internet would ever be on Starlink?  Even 1% would be an amazing number of connections.  And there’s no really strong pairing effect for most Starlink users - they’ll largely just want, you know, the internet at large.

And it would just be peer to peer stuff like video calls, not client server stuff.  Servers basically won’t be on Starlink - compared to good fixed line service, Starlink is a connectivity or latency play option rather than a capacity option.  Starlink is amazing for satellite internet and good enough to beat mediocre wired connections, but data centers serving lots of traffic always have good connections - they have to or they’d just build elsewhere.

So they might do this - that latency play part may be important - but I can’t see how the network effect ever becomes a decent % of traffic outside of very special cases.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 07/24/2022 12:28 am
… Also, for some applications, both the client and server side may have Starlink terminals so you COULD skip the gateway altogether and do peer to peer all over Starlink. This is a network effect that would happen very rarely at first but over time could be considerable.

Eh, what % of the internet would ever be on Starlink?  Even 1% would be an amazing number of connections.  And there’s no really strong pairing effect for most Starlink users - they’ll largely just want, you know, the internet at large.

And it would just be peer to peer stuff like video calls, not client server stuff.  Servers basically won’t be on Starlink - compared to good fixed line service, Starlink is a connectivity or latency play option rather than a capacity option.  Starlink is amazing for satellite internet and good enough to beat mediocre wired connections, but data centers serving lots of traffic always have good connections - they have to or they’d just build elsewhere.

So they might do this - that latency play part may be important - but I can’t see how the network effect ever becomes a decent % of traffic outside of very special cases.

Put a few dishes on your local CDN node and that fraction goes up significantly. Cloud providers already try to use private network links wherever possible, to the extent of laying their own ocean crossing fiber. Netflix also co-locates small servers with ISPs all over the place, their current design can serve some 10000 users locally.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 07/24/2022 07:51 am
SpaceX being a newcomer to the ISP game means some of those peering deals just aren't there yet.

The reason I concluded the ground stations play a part is because I actually get more stable upload doing a Twitch Bandwidth Test going to the Portland server vs the Seattle server, even though Redmond is the Ground Station manufacturing hub.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 07/24/2022 02:08 pm
Gotta wonder if bandwidth complaints are due to everybody hammering the system with tests. LoL.

That was just for 5 minutes at 4am  :)
I was half in jest but 100k techno geek users testing hourly for a robust system model...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Redclaws on 07/24/2022 02:13 pm
… Also, for some applications, both the client and server side may have Starlink terminals so you COULD skip the gateway altogether and do peer to peer all over Starlink. This is a network effect that would happen very rarely at first but over time could be considerable.

Eh, what % of the internet would ever be on Starlink?  Even 1% would be an amazing number of connections.  And there’s no really strong pairing effect for most Starlink users - they’ll largely just want, you know, the internet at large.

And it would just be peer to peer stuff like video calls, not client server stuff.  Servers basically won’t be on Starlink - compared to good fixed line service, Starlink is a connectivity or latency play option rather than a capacity option.  Starlink is amazing for satellite internet and good enough to beat mediocre wired connections, but data centers serving lots of traffic always have good connections - they have to or they’d just build elsewhere.

So they might do this - that latency play part may be important - but I can’t see how the network effect ever becomes a decent % of traffic outside of very special cases.

Put a few dishes on your local CDN node and that fraction goes up significantly. Cloud providers already try to use private network links wherever possible, to the extent of laying their own ocean crossing fiber. Netflix also co-locates small servers with ISPs all over the place, their current design can serve some 10000 users locally.

But why not put them at the ground station or just send data to said ground station?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: daavery on 07/24/2022 02:33 pm
I wonder how most CDNs deal with a user who moves between different ground POPs on a frequent basis? one "feature " of starlink appears to be the uncoupling of consumer location and POP feeds on a real time basis , which i expect will get worse when ISLs start moving POP-user connectivity to deal with congestion
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/24/2022 02:54 pm
I wonder how most CDNs deal with a user who moves between different ground POPs on a frequent basis? one "feature " of starlink appears to be the uncoupling of consumer location and POP feeds on a real time basis , which i expect will get worse when ISLs start moving POP-user connectivity to deal with congestion
One way to do this is to create a single proxy location in the ground system to represent the user. The satellite side of the system uses specialized dynamically-changing forwarding tables to keep the user's fixed terminal connected to this location that represents the user. The entire rest of the Internet thinks the user is located at that proxy location, so the routing tables in the rest of the Internet do not change as the user's terminal hops among satellites and satellites hop among gateways.

In the "simple" non-ISL case, more than half the users are in locations that switch between satellites that are served by two or more gateways, so the user's traffic switches from gateway to gateway as frequently as once every three minutes. The idea that a user is served by one gateway and that gateway is a PoP is just wrong.

ISL can potentially simplify this by allowing the user's data to always use the same gateway, or to shift only based on gateway congestion instead of being forced to shift based on satellite location.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 07/24/2022 09:10 pm
ISL is definitely trying right now to resolve downlink congestion from the satellites, but ISL doesn't seem to be doing anything right now for upload, as there's still really bad buffer bloat on the uplink to the satellite.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 07/24/2022 09:40 pm
ISL is definitely trying right now to resolve downlink congestion from the satellites, but ISL doesn't seem to be doing anything right now for upload, as there's still really bad buffer bloat on the uplink to the satellite.
In the StarLink network, the Gateway-Satellite link is not the big  problem. In radio communication, when we talk about the use of the frequency spectrum or how many bits can we transmit per 1
 Hz. The main parameter is  the signal-to-noise ratio, Eb/No which is in dB. If this ratio is equal to 10-12 dB, then you can transmit 3..3.5 bits per 1 Hz of the spectrum. Theoretically, the StarLink terminal can operate on 64QAM modulation, but it is extremely difficult to provide Eb/No 16-18 for its small terminal. Eb/No is mostly determined by the square of ​​the antenna and distance to satellite .
The antenna at the Gateway has a diameter of 1.5 m and it is easy to provide 64QAM between GW and Sat. But the antenna of the terminal is much smaller (less as 0.5 m) and there 64QAM  there can only be a short time of ideal conditions - cloudless weather + satellite directly above the terminal..
 Sat to terminal link has  240 MHz  It mean  about 700..800 Mbit for one cell and all UT in this cell..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 07/24/2022 09:46 pm
I fully understand higher modulations for transmit can't cope with stuff like rain fade/clouds/etc for UT transmit, hence the lower speeds.

Which is why I think higher surface area for receive on the satellite (Starlink V2) and potential multi-pathing could help vs using a higher modulation. The beamforming as of current has to be really precise in targeting and isn't even the full duty cycle at the moment.

Really hoping the bigger V2s allow more tolerance for aiming vs the smaller V1.5s.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 07/24/2022 09:54 pm
Here's my new estimation for user terminal deployments:

25.08.2021: 100k + 11k/mo based on Elon comments to NASDAQ
01.11.2021: 140k + 11k/mo official data from SpaceX
25.02.2022: 250k presented by Jonathan Hofeller at Satellite 2022
10.06.2022: 500k + 80k/mo from Gerst interview
20.07.2022: 700k + 160k/mo according to Reddit leaks

The supposed leak certainly tracks and puts current revenue at ~$1 billion a year. My prediction for year end 2022 would be between 1.7 million and 2.5 million deployed terminals, for >$2.5 billion in recurring revenue.
I would be extremely careful in using linear extrapolation for the global market outside of the US.
Look at how many customers there are now in the US (pop. 337 million) and in France (pop. 66 million and only 4000 users - https://advanced-television.com/2022/06/08/france-opens-up-to-starlink), countries where household incomes are roughly equal. It is impossible to expect such income from 1 million people as in the USA anywhere else in the world - either better infrastructure in communications or less income for the population
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 07/28/2022 05:51 am
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1551434933285052416

Quote
Of the 260 Starlink satellites that have reentered so far, we have reentry locations for 102. This plot illustrates that the locations are random, consistent with the fact that the final week of their orbital decay and reentry is uncontrolled

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 07/28/2022 05:52 am
Some criticism about the current Starlink service:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-q1fcOa8P4
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/29/2022 05:51 pm
Not sure if this has been posted already?

Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist link=I topic=48302.msg2391139#msg2391139 date=1659116907
https://twitter.com/erinishimoticha/status/1553059526693294084

Quote
SpaceX has implemented innovative technological solutions and techniques to minimize its satellites’ effect on the night sky, and today it published new findings to share with the industry. #Starlink #astronomy

https://api.starlink.com/public-files/BrightnessMitigationBestPracticesSatelliteOperators.pdf
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 07/29/2022 08:42 pm
Interesting tidbit about that press release: They are now selling brightness mitigation materials to other operators at cost.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/30/2022 09:54 am
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1553107664565157889

Quote
New document from @SpaceX api.starlink.com/public-files/B…
explaining what they have been doing to make their satellites less bright.
  I applaud SpaceX for their work on this (and for making the document public), while remaining concerned to see how bright the Gen2 Starlinks end up being

twitter.com/alexanderkenwa7/status/1553173262049296385

Quote
@planet4589 What say you? Merely PR or are they on the right track

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1553173594284474371

Quote
Time will tell. I do think they are putting significant effort in, and that's good.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: laszlo on 08/03/2022 05:52 pm
I watched the livestream  from the Subaru telescope on Mauna Kea this morning. At about 4:30 am local the startlink horde started showing up. At one point there were over a dozen moving satellites on the screen. Felt sorry for the guys trying to count photons up there.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: meekGee on 08/03/2022 09:28 pm
I watched the livestream  from the Subaru telescope on Mauna Kea this morning. At about 4:30 am local the startlink horde started showing up. At one point there were over a dozen moving satellites on the screen. Felt sorry for the guys trying to count photons up there.
You don't have to.  They know in advance if there are lit satellites in their sky and where amd when, so they can schedule observations to avoid them.

Just because you CAN image them doesn't mean you should.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 08/04/2022 07:23 am
As a user, I've noticed when it chooses a satellite on ISL and there's no link to a nearby ground station, point of presence pings can max out around 100ms to 280ms when it tries to go to a ground station on the other side of the world for that 15 second window. The additional latency causes havok on real time communications, but currently is infrequent. This is what's contributing to some reports of "multiplayer video games kicking players" on Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 08/04/2022 07:29 am
Starlink price has been halved in France... but with a catch: Data caps of 250GB.

In French: https://i.redd.it/42flbq2rcjf91.png
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tomness on 08/04/2022 10:55 am
Starlink price has been halved in France... but with a catch: Data caps of 250GB.

In French: https://i.redd.it/42flbq2rcjf91.png

That's still a great deal. Coming from starlink competitior that is more then starlink with 35 GB Cap. You could stream half day,  every day not hit 250 GB. If still had the option to chose the higher price with no cap even better.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 08/04/2022 04:05 pm
Starlink price has been halved in France... but with a catch: Data caps of 250GB.

In French: https://i.redd.it/42flbq2rcjf91.png

That's still a great deal. Coming from starlink competitior that is more then starlink with 35 GB Cap. You could stream half day,  every day not hit 250 GB. If still had the option to chose the higher price with no cap even better.

Same here, but I was hoping for a higher cap. Right now I've got a 100 GB cap, and it's a pain to keep everything under that. Forget downloading modern games -- I have to do that in town and go through a time consuming and annoying transfer process.

250 is better, but still not "let 'er rip."

Are they still offering an unlimited tier for a higher price?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 08/04/2022 05:32 pm
They're trialing select customers to move to the cheaper tier, and it's not an opt in. It's completely random. It's "You're one of our lab rats" and there is no opt out. If you're selected, you get usage based billing because it's a modification to the French TOS.

Understandably people expecting to be grandfathered in are upset they're being dragged into a usage based billing experiment.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 08/04/2022 11:58 pm
Is France (or a specific region of france) really problematic enough in terms of user concentrations in specific cells that are causing slowdowns, that it would justify experimenting on them rather than in the US?

Or is it just an accident of power user concentration in a rural area, say one of those instagrammable beach or mountain villages that are attracting WFH digital nomads like flies...

Or some rural hermit is bittorrenting like mad...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 08/05/2022 02:22 am
The full text from reddit (https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/wfd0sb/and_suddenly_starlink_prices_are_halved_in_france/):

Quote
À compter du 3 août 2022, Starlink réduit vos frais de service mensuels en France métropolitaine de 99 €/mois à 50 €/mois. Aucune action n'est nécessaire de votre part, la réduction de prix sera automatiquement appliquée sur votre prochaine facture.
Cette baisse de prix s'inscrit dans un programme pilote visant à connecter le plus grand nombre de personnes sans dégrader la qualité de service. En tant qu’utilisateur loyal de Starlink, le résultat à court terme pour vous sera le même service Starlink à moitié prix.
En octobre, l'équipe Starlink mettra également en œuvre une politique d'Utilisation Équitable pour s'assurer qu'à mesure que notre clientèle grandit, la qualité du service de l'utilisateur typique ne sera pas affectée négativement par les utilisateurs qui consomment de grandes quantités de données.
Dans le cadre de la politique d'Utilisation Équitable, tous les utilisateurs continueront d'avoir accès à des données illimitées. Les utilisateurs qui consomment 250 Go/mois ou moins de données seront priorisés. Les utilisateurs qui dépassent 250 Go/mois auront toujours accès à des données illimitées, mais peuvent connaître des vitesses plus lentes pendant les périodes de congestion du réseau. Les utilisateurs peuvent également choisir d'acheter des données supplémentaires pour récupérer la priorité à 10 €/100 Go.
La priorisation est basée uniquement sur l'utilisation des données, sans tenir compte du fournisseur de contenu. Vous pouvez en savoir plus sur la politique d'Utilisation Équitable de Starlink ici.
Notre objectif final est de fournir une connexion internet sensationnelle au plus grand nombre de personnes possible dans le monde, en particulier à celles qui ont été mal desservies ou entièrement déconnectées.
Merci d’être un client loyal et de votre soutien envers Starlink !


Translation:

Quote
Starting August 3, 2022, Starlink reduces your monthly service fee in France from €99/month to €50/month. No action is required on your part, the price reduction will be automatically applied to your next bill.
This price reduction is part of a pilot program aimed at connecting as many people as possible without degrading the quality of service. As a loyal Starlink user, the short-term result for you will be the same Starlink service at half price.
In October, the Starlink team will also implement a Fair Use policy to ensure that as our customer base grows, the typical user's quality of service will not be adversely affected by users who consume large amounts of data.
Under the Fair Use policy, all users will continue to have access to unlimited data. Users who consume 250 GB/month or less of data will be prioritized. Users who exceed 250 GB/month will still have access to unlimited data, but may experience slower speeds during times of network congestion. Users can also choose to purchase additional data to reclaim the priority at €10/100GB.
Prioritization is based solely on data usage, regardless of the content provider. You can read more about Starlink's Fair Use policy here.
Our ultimate goal is to provide a great internet connection to as many people as possible around the world, especially those who have been underserved or disconnected entirely.
Thank you for being a loyal customer and for your support of Starlink!

So it's not just €50 for 250GB, but there's also the option to increase soft cap by paying €10/100GB.

This looks like a replacement for the old pricing scheme, instead of an alternative to it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 08/05/2022 03:13 am
https://twitter.com/JohnBarentine/status/1554941375631597568

Quote
New @RAS_Journals paper w/ photometry of 61 Starlink sats. (All #'s are means in GAIA G mag units)

All Starlink: 5.5 ± 0.13 (σ=1.12)
V1.0 (pre-VisorSat): 5.1 ± 0.13 (σ=1.13)
'DarkSat': 7.3 ± 0.13 (σ=0.78)
'VisorSat': 6.0 ± 0.13 (σ=0.79)



Also worth noting in the paper: an estimate of the accuracy of published TLEs for Starlinks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 08/05/2022 02:18 pm
Is France (or a specific region of france) really problematic enough in terms of user concentrations in specific cells that are causing slowdowns, that it would justify experimenting on them rather than in the US?

Or is it just an accident of power user concentration in a rural area, say one of those instagrammable beach or mountain villages that are attracting WFH digital nomads like flies...

Or some rural hermit is bittorrenting like mad...

Less likely that than the engineers needed a technical and social test bed on this change. However, this is something you test on new customers, not existing customers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 08/05/2022 04:16 pm
Is France (or a specific region of france) really problematic enough in terms of user concentrations in specific cells that are causing slowdowns, that it would justify experimenting on them rather than in the US?

Or is it just an accident of power user concentration in a rural area, say one of those instagrammable beach or mountain villages that are attracting WFH digital nomads like flies...

Or some rural hermit is bittorrenting like mad...

Less likely that than the engineers needed a technical and social test bed on this change. However, this is something you test on new customers, not existing customers.

France has pretty tight regulations on telecoms, to the extent that people where surprised Starlink was approved at all. It's entirely possible they have to offer a $50 tier.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 08/05/2022 06:58 pm
The full text from reddit (https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/wfd0sb/and_suddenly_starlink_prices_are_halved_in_france/):

Quote
À compter du 3 août 2022, Starlink réduit vos frais de service mensuels en France métropolitaine de 99 €/mois à 50 €/mois. Aucune action n'est nécessaire de votre part, la réduction de prix sera automatiquement appliquée sur votre prochaine facture.
Cette baisse de prix s'inscrit dans un programme pilote visant à connecter le plus grand nombre de personnes sans dégrader la qualité de service. En tant qu’utilisateur loyal de Starlink, le résultat à court terme pour vous sera le même service Starlink à moitié prix.
En octobre, l'équipe Starlink mettra également en œuvre une politique d'Utilisation Équitable pour s'assurer qu'à mesure que notre clientèle grandit, la qualité du service de l'utilisateur typique ne sera pas affectée négativement par les utilisateurs qui consomment de grandes quantités de données.
Dans le cadre de la politique d'Utilisation Équitable, tous les utilisateurs continueront d'avoir accès à des données illimitées. Les utilisateurs qui consomment 250 Go/mois ou moins de données seront priorisés. Les utilisateurs qui dépassent 250 Go/mois auront toujours accès à des données illimitées, mais peuvent connaître des vitesses plus lentes pendant les périodes de congestion du réseau. Les utilisateurs peuvent également choisir d'acheter des données supplémentaires pour récupérer la priorité à 10 €/100 Go.
La priorisation est basée uniquement sur l'utilisation des données, sans tenir compte du fournisseur de contenu. Vous pouvez en savoir plus sur la politique d'Utilisation Équitable de Starlink ici.
Notre objectif final est de fournir une connexion internet sensationnelle au plus grand nombre de personnes possible dans le monde, en particulier à celles qui ont été mal desservies ou entièrement déconnectées.
Merci d’être un client loyal et de votre soutien envers Starlink !


Translation:

Quote
Starting August 3, 2022, Starlink reduces your monthly service fee in France from €99/month to €50/month. No action is required on your part, the price reduction will be automatically applied to your next bill.
This price reduction is part of a pilot program aimed at connecting as many people as possible without degrading the quality of service. As a loyal Starlink user, the short-term result for you will be the same Starlink service at half price.
In October, the Starlink team will also implement a Fair Use policy to ensure that as our customer base grows, the typical user's quality of service will not be adversely affected by users who consume large amounts of data.
Under the Fair Use policy, all users will continue to have access to unlimited data. Users who consume 250 GB/month or less of data will be prioritized. Users who exceed 250 GB/month will still have access to unlimited data, but may experience slower speeds during times of network congestion. Users can also choose to purchase additional data to reclaim the priority at €10/100GB.
Prioritization is based solely on data usage, regardless of the content provider. You can read more about Starlink's Fair Use policy here.
Our ultimate goal is to provide a great internet connection to as many people as possible around the world, especially those who have been underserved or disconnected entirely.
Thank you for being a loyal customer and for your support of Starlink!

So it's not just €50 for 250GB, but there's also the option to increase soft cap by paying €10/100GB.

This looks like a replacement for the old pricing scheme, instead of an alternative to it.

So they do offer a means of raising the cap. 10 euros for 100GB is still *very* competitive with Viasat, which asks for something like 10 dollars for every extra Gig over cap.

Or at least they did -- I'm not even sure they have that option anymore.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 08/06/2022 02:31 pm
The problem is less that than the lack of an option to opt out of the "experiment." They're testing this on existing customers first, which when it's a billing change that affects service, is a hard pill to swallow.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 08/06/2022 04:29 pm
The problem is less that than the lack of an option to opt out of the "experiment." They're testing this on existing customers first, which when it's a billing change that affects service, is a hard pill to swallow.

Oh sure. I can certainly see that, and I have no idea if such a change is within the TOS or not.

But my personal concern is still in comparing Starlink with competitors (which would be Viasat or Hughes) for service to me, and so far they are still a better deal even if they universally apply this plan.

It does narrow the gap though. If their price keeps climbing and the cap keeps lowering it could be bad.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 08/06/2022 04:42 pm
Is there a possibility that this is a result of French regulation, and therefore peculiar to France?



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 08/06/2022 06:56 pm
Most like to believe this is the case, but since they said "pilot program", it's being billed as an experiment on existing customers rather than flat out changing the public landing pages to reflect that customers from this point forward are getting this.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 08/07/2022 04:58 pm
Even the tremendously optimistic Musk has stated from the beginning that although they would like to never have caps, they might be inevitable (paraphrasing various twitter posts).

I kinda figured they'd have to sooner rather than later. It's just too easy for a small portion of the customer base to hog all the throughput otherwise, and they will do it with no remorse.

The things I'm looking for is how Starlink will handle it it. I see from the French experiment that the caps at this point are a bit low from what I want, but purchasing extra quantities is not terribly expensive. I'd also be interested in just how 'soft' the cap is. Viasat also has the wordage that after the cap your service "may be deprioritized behind other customers" -- which means in practice the second you go over 100 gigs you are chopped down to sub-DSL speeds. If Starlink can manage actual traffic shaping where you can still maintain good speeds except at actual peak that might not be too bad.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 08/08/2022 08:25 am
Starlink lowered user terminal price in Italy/Germany/Austria (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/w81kk9/starlink_in_italy_199_20295/), new Dishy price: Italy 199 Euro, Germany/Austria 399 Euro.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 08/08/2022 08:37 am
New Starlink and OneWeb maps (https://planet4589.org/space/stats/planes.html) by Jonathan McDowell!

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1556417530390089730

I really like these plane/phase graphs, they illustrate the network so much better than blotches on a map.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Swedish chef on 08/08/2022 12:30 pm
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/echostars-hughes-spacex-starlink-now-taking-customers-from-us-and-is-our-biggest-competitive-threat/
Quote
EchoStar’s Hughes: SpaceX Starlink now taking customers from us and is our biggest competitive threat
written by Peter B. de Selding August 8, 2022

LA PLATA, Maryland — EchoStar Corp.’s broadband satellite service provider, Hughes Network Systems, acknowledged for the first time that SpaceX’s Starlink satellite constellation is taking Hughes customers by offering lower-latency connectivity.

Hughes is responding with a combined satellite-LTE offer to customers for whom low latency is an issue. Longer term, Hughes is counting on the large Jupiter 3 Ka-band broadband satellite, to be in service by June 2023, to counter Starlink.

“The biggest threat right now is Starlink, because . . .

To view the entire article, become a subscriber!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 08/08/2022 12:48 pm
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/echostars-hughes-spacex-starlink-now-taking-customers-from-us-and-is-our-biggest-competitive-threat/
Quote
EchoStar’s Hughes: SpaceX Starlink now taking customers from us and is our biggest competitive threat
written by Peter B. de Selding August 8, 2022

To view the entire article, become a subscriber!

This is from EchoStar's Q2 earnings call, full transcript can be viewed here (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4530862-echostar-corporation-sats-ceo-hamid-akhavan-on-q2-2022-results-earnings-call-transcript), the relevant paragraph is:

Quote
Michael Rollins

A couple of questions about -- first question is just in terms of the performance of the Hughes consumer business. Did you see any impact during the quarter from competition, which could be fixed wireless access, some of these emerging fiber builds or any other LEO competition? And I have another question after this.

Hamid Akhavan

Pradman, I'd like to direct that question to you as well.

Pradman Kaul

Okay. We are obviously losing some subscribers to other technologies and other LEO networks. The biggest threat right now really is Starlink because they are -- they can address the latency issue that the GEO sat has done. So we're losing some subs clearly to Starlink. And we've been working hard to try to come up with solutions that will compete on this latency issue.

Now the solution we are hoping in the interim will be Fusion, the Fusion service that we talked about, which is the combination of GEO and LTE capability, which will address the Fusion -- Fusion will address the latency issue very well. So we're hoping once we do that, that should reduce our churn from the people who need faster latency compared to the other services that don't need it.

In addition, 70% of our traffic is video, and video broadcast video primarily. And that application doesn't require fast latency. So we're hoping that we take the combination of customers that we have that will require low latency and the introduction of Fusion service beginning in August and September this year, that we will address the customers that are churning out.

But having said that, we will churn up some customers to Starlink. They are a formidable competitor, and we'll have to continue to battle it out with them. But I think the market will support 2 or 3 suppliers of this service, of high-speed service. And we're comfortable that we'll be one of those 2 or 3 suppliers that will stay in the business successfully.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 08/08/2022 12:50 pm
Quote
In addition, 70% of our traffic is video, and video broadcast video primarily. And that application doesn't require fast latency. So we're hoping that we take the combination of customers that we have that will require low latency and the introduction of Fusion service beginning in August and September this year, that we will address the customers that are churning out.

But having said that, we will churn up some customers to Starlink. They are a formidable competitor, and we'll have to continue to battle it out with them. But I think the market will support 2 or 3 suppliers of this service, of high-speed service. And we're comfortable that we'll be one of those 2 or 3 suppliers that will stay in the business successfully.

Ouch, file that under "things a former market leader says just before going down".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ulm_atms on 08/08/2022 12:57 pm
Even the tremendously optimistic Musk has stated from the beginning that although they would like to never have caps, they might be inevitable (paraphrasing various twitter posts).

I kinda figured they'd have to sooner rather than later. It's just too easy for a small portion of the customer base to hog all the throughput otherwise, and they will do it with no remorse.

The things I'm looking for is how Starlink will handle it it. I see from the French experiment that the caps at this point are a bit low from what I want, but purchasing extra quantities is not terribly expensive. I'd also be interested in just how 'soft' the cap is. Viasat also has the wordage that after the cap your service "may be deprioritized behind other customers" -- which means in practice the second you go over 100 gigs you are chopped down to sub-DSL speeds. If Starlink can manage actual traffic shaping where you can still maintain good speeds except at actual peak that might not be too bad.
While I agree with you, the France cap is too small.  I had crap DSL and even that crappy service had a 1Tb cap which in this day and age is acceptable....100G is absolutely not.

If they want to institute that small of a cap here, they better grandfather in current users or I am going to take them to small claims court to recoup all my time and money (~2K at this point for everything including the tower I had to install to get over some trees)  The variable speeds I can EASILY work with as they are still much, much faster then my old DSL.  The cap I cannot unless it is something reasonable.  If they instituted that low of a cap before I would of converted my pre-order, I most likely would of canceled it as the money spent would not be worth it with the cap.

Shoot, I had to re-download MSFS2020 this weekend due to a drive crash and that was ~200G right there!!!!!!  I would be frakked if it was throttled after one dang program install for the rest of the month.  And don't get me started on how much Microsoft uses each month alone for updates......
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 08/08/2022 01:51 pm
While I agree with you, the France cap is too small.  I had crap DSL and even that crappy service had a 1Tb cap which in this day and age is acceptable....100G is absolutely not.

Please note the France cap is not 100GB, it's 250GB for €50, and you can increase it by paying €10 for 100GB. So for the original price of €99 you get a cap of 750GB.

Considering average data consumption for North America is 500GB per month in Q4 2021 (https://www.lightreading.com/cable-tech/average-data-consumption-eclipses-half-terabyte-per-month---openvault/d/d-id/775689), it looks like most subscribers will have a lower cost under the new plan, especially if you can purchase the cap increase on an as-needed basis.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 08/08/2022 04:53 pm
Quote
In addition, 70% of our traffic is video, and video broadcast video primarily. And that application doesn't require fast latency. So we're hoping that we take the combination of customers that we have that will require low latency and the introduction of Fusion service beginning in August and September this year, that we will address the customers that are churning out.

But having said that, we will churn up some customers to Starlink. They are a formidable competitor, and we'll have to continue to battle it out with them. But I think the market will support 2 or 3 suppliers of this service, of high-speed service. And we're comfortable that we'll be one of those 2 or 3 suppliers that will stay in the business successfully.

Ouch, file that under "things a former market leader says just before going down".

Yeah. That last part was basically just saying that market lead was going to Starlink but they think they may be able to hang on with all the old codgers that just wanted to watch TV.

The point about video not caring about latency is valid though, and if the new generation of GEO-sats can up the bandwidth and caps for the average video watcher over what Starlink can supply with LEO birds then they keep their niche. Thing is with all the new sats Starlink is lifting, especially their own new generation just waiting for Starship to get lofted, I'm not sure how long even that niche is going to last.

Personally speaking, my Viasat has one advantage -- in a tree filled area I only have had to carve out one visual line to point at the GEOsat. That is actually a big deal around these parts, and I expect a lot of folks around here are going to not do their due diligence and end up returning Starlinks when it is clear their yards are not clear enough, so to speak.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 08/08/2022 05:02 pm
Even the tremendously optimistic Musk has stated from the beginning that although they would like to never have caps, they might be inevitable (paraphrasing various twitter posts).

I kinda figured they'd have to sooner rather than later. It's just too easy for a small portion of the customer base to hog all the throughput otherwise, and they will do it with no remorse.

The things I'm looking for is how Starlink will handle it it. I see from the French experiment that the caps at this point are a bit low from what I want, but purchasing extra quantities is not terribly expensive. I'd also be interested in just how 'soft' the cap is. Viasat also has the wordage that after the cap your service "may be deprioritized behind other customers" -- which means in practice the second you go over 100 gigs you are chopped down to sub-DSL speeds. If Starlink can manage actual traffic shaping where you can still maintain good speeds except at actual peak that might not be too bad.
While I agree with you, the France cap is too small.  I had crap DSL and even that crappy service had a 1Tb cap which in this day and age is acceptable....100G is absolutely not.

If they want to institute that small of a cap here, they better grandfather in current users or I am going to take them to small claims court to recoup all my time and money (~2K at this point for everything including the tower I had to install to get over some trees)  The variable speeds I can EASILY work with as they are still much, much faster then my old DSL.  The cap I cannot unless it is something reasonable.  If they instituted that low of a cap before I would of converted my pre-order, I most likely would of canceled it as the money spent would not be worth it with the cap.

Shoot, I had to re-download MSFS2020 this weekend due to a drive crash and that was ~200G right there!!!!!!  I would be frakked if it was throttled after one dang program install for the rest of the month.  And don't get me started on how much Microsoft uses each month alone for updates......

Sorry, I didn't word that clearly. It is Viasat that has 100 as the cap on its "unlimited tier," not Starlink. I was just using that as my current comparison.

And yes it is ridiculously small. Since the kids left we are just a two person family here, and not even compulsive TV watchers -- meaning the screens are not on all the time -- we'll just sit down and watch something every couple of evenings. Even with that, and considering if we pre-plan for a show I'll download it on my phone in town and then cast it to the screen here at home, we routinely max out each month.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tomness on 08/08/2022 05:07 pm
Quote

<Snip>

<snip>

Personally speaking, my Viasat has one advantage -- in a tree filled area I only have had to carve out one visual line to point at the GEOsat. That is actually a big deal around these parts, and I expect a lot of folks around here are going to not do their due diligence and end up returning Starlinks when it is clear their yards are not clear enough, so to speak.

I know many areas like that,  have you thought about clearing one area and putting the dish higher then the tree line?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 08/08/2022 05:32 pm

<Snip>

<snip>

Personally speaking, my Viasat has one advantage -- in a tree filled area I only have had to carve out one visual line to point at the GEOsat. That is actually a big deal around these parts, and I expect a lot of folks around here are going to not do their due diligence and end up returning Starlinks when it is clear their yards are not clear enough, so to speak.

I know many areas like that,  have you thought about clearing one area and putting the dish higher then the tree line?

Oh I've already bought a twenty foot tower, plus I've been checking into wireless relays if I need to put it further out than the supplied cabling (plus that might just look neater anyhow). But a lot of folks aren't going to want to put in that trouble, especially if they are just using their satellite to watch Netflix...

But I'm just waiting on my Dishy now. "Mid-2022" isn't looking too likely anymore.

Edit to fix quote weirdness
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Hog on 08/09/2022 05:52 pm
Weirdo formatting on the last 2 posts.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 08/09/2022 05:58 pm
Shoot, I had to re-download MSFS2020 this weekend due to a drive crash and that was ~200G right there!!!!!!  I would be frakked if it was throttled after one dang program install for the rest of the month.  And don't get me started on how much Microsoft uses each month alone for updates......

Star Citizen is worse. The whole world is dynamically streamed in from their servers. Sometimes frame rate dips are because the SERVER isn't fast enough.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/09/2022 06:15 pm
Modern games are ridiculous bandwidth hogs. It’s absurd.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: leovinus on 08/09/2022 08:54 pm
Multiple Air Force Units Buy SpaceX’s Starlink Satellite Internet Services
https://www.airforcemag.com/multiple-air-force-units-buy-spacexs-starlink-satellite-internet-services/
Quote
A pair of Air Force units across two major commands have announced plans to purchase services from SpaceX’s Starlink constellation of satellites in low Earth orbit. The contracts come not long after service leaders praised the effectiveness of the satellite internet service in aiding Ukraine against Russia’s invasion.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/09/2022 09:17 pm
Quote
In addition, 70% of our traffic is video, and video broadcast video primarily. And that application doesn't require fast latency. So we're hoping that we take the combination of customers that we have that will require low latency and the introduction of Fusion service beginning in August and September this year, that we will address the customers that are churning out.

But having said that, we will churn up some customers to Starlink. They are a formidable competitor, and we'll have to continue to battle it out with them. But I think the market will support 2 or 3 suppliers of this service, of high-speed service. And we're comfortable that we'll be one of those 2 or 3 suppliers that will stay in the business successfully.

Ouch, file that under "things a former market leader says just before going down".

Yeah. That last part was basically just saying that market lead was going to Starlink but they think they may be able to hang on with all the old codgers that just wanted to watch TV.

The point about video not caring about latency is valid though, and if the new generation of GEO-sats can up the bandwidth and caps for the average video watcher over what Starlink can supply with LEO birds then they keep their niche. Thing is with all the new sats Starlink is lifting, especially their own new generation just waiting for Starship to get lofted, I'm not sure how long even that niche is going to last.

Personally speaking, my Viasat has one advantage -- in a tree filled area I only have had to carve out one visual line to point at the GEOsat. That is actually a big deal around these parts, and I expect a lot of folks around here are going to not do their due diligence and end up returning Starlinks when it is clear their yards are not clear enough, so to speak.
Most of commercial GEO market is satellite TV. The move to internet TV was killing this market. For most of these consumers high latency GEO broadband is fine as they weren't gamers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: abaddon on 08/10/2022 03:43 am
Modern games are ridiculous bandwidth hogs. It’s absurd.
Most aren't, because they need to work over a wide range of consumer connections.

Source: me, I work on a several of them...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Craigles on 08/10/2022 06:58 pm
I'm puzzled by this Reuters report.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-rejects-broadband-subsidies-spacexs-starlink-ltd-2022-08-10/
Is this regarding a new phase of the rural broadband initiative, or is it the award that was announced last summer? What is its reasoning?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gongora on 08/10/2022 07:14 pm
FCC REJECTS APPLICATIONS OF LTD BROADBAND AND STARLINK
FOR RURAL DIGITAL OPPORTUNITY FUND SUBSIDIES

Applicants Failed to Meet Program Requirements
and Convince FCC to Fund Risky Proposals

WASHINGTON, August 10, 2022—The Federal Communications Commission today announced
that it is rejecting the long-form applications of LTD Broadband and Starlink to receive support
through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund program. The Commission determined that these
applications failed to demonstrate that the providers could deliver the promised service. Funding
these vast proposed networks would not be the best use of limited Universal Service Fund dollars
to bring broadband to unserved areas across the United States, the Commission concluded.

“After careful legal, technical, and policy review, we are rejecting these applications. Consumers
deserve reliable and affordable high-speed broadband,” said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. “We
must put scarce universal service dollars to their best possible use as we move into a digital future
that demands ever more powerful and faster networks. We cannot afford to subsidize ventures
that are not delivering the promised speeds or are not likely to meet program requirements.”

“Starlink’s technology has real promise,” continued Chairwoman Rosenworcel. “But the
question before us was whether to publicly subsidize its still developing technology for consumer
broadband—which requires that users purchase a $600 dish—with nearly $900 million in
universal service funds until 2032.”

In the initial auction results announced December 7, 2020, LTD Broadband won
$1,320,920,718.60, and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (Starlink) won $885,509,638.40.

Although LTD was a relatively small fixed wireless provider before the auction, it was the largest
winning bidder in the auction, submitting winning bids in 15 states. Subsequently, it failed to
timely receive eligible telecommunications carrier status in seven states, rendering it ineligible in
those states for support. Ultimately, the FCC review concluded that LTD was not reasonably
capable of deploying a network of the scope, scale, and size required by LTD’s extensive winning
bids.

The Commission separately announced that is ready to authorize $21,112,263 in broadband
funding to three companies to deploy gigabit service to almost 15,000 locations in four states
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.

To date, the RDOF program has authorized more than $5 billion in funding to bring primarily
fiber gigabit broadband service to over 3,000,000 locations in 47 states. With support from this
program, hundreds of carriers have already begun deploying these future-proof networks to
connect unserved areas.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gongora on 08/10/2022 07:19 pm
The Bureau has concluded its review of LTD Broadband’s (LTD) and Starlink’s long form
applications. LTD proposes to deploy gigabit fiber to 475,616 estimated locations in 11 states.64 Starlink,
relying upon a nascent LEO satellite technology and the ability to timely deploy future satellites to
manage recognized capacity constraints while maintaining broadband speeds to both RDOF and non-
RDOF customers, seeks funding to provide 100/20 Mbps low latency service to 642,925 estimated
locations in 35 states. The Bureau has determined that, based on the totality of the long-form
applications, the expansive service areas reflected in their winning bids, and their inadequate responses to
the Bureau’s follow-up questions, LTD and Starlink are not reasonably capable of complying with the
Commission’s requirements. The Commission has an obligation to protect our limited Universal Service
Funds and to avoid extensive delays in providing needed service to rural areas, including by avoiding
subsidizing risky proposals that promise faster speeds than they can deliver, and/or propose deployment
plans that are not realistic or that are predicated on aggressive assumptions and predictions. We observe
that Ookla data reported as of July 31, 2022 indicate that Starlink’s speeds have been declining from the
last quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2022, including upload speeds that are falling well below 20
Mbps. Accordingly, we deny LTD’s and Starlink’s long-form applications, and both are in default on all
winning bids not already announced as defaulted. Because LTD has defaulted on its remaining winning
bids, we also dismiss as moot LTD’s petition for reconsideration of the Bureau’s denial of its request for
additional time to obtain an ETC designation in Nebraska and North Dakota.65
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 08/10/2022 07:45 pm
Wow, that is NOT a good decision.    From the quoted text, i don't see much rational reasoning behind it.

I am a starlink customer, and the service has been very good.    Objectively, it is the only option for many, many locations.   

It should be part of this program.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 08/10/2022 07:51 pm
I don't doubt it's lobbyists making things hard. From the language, basically it sounded like they made it so there would be no way to contest the decision.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gongora on 08/10/2022 07:51 pm
Wow, that is NOT a good decision.    From the quoted text, i don't see much rational reasoning behind it.

I am a starlink customer, and the service has been very good.    Objectively, it is the only option for many, many locations.   

It should be part of this program.

Having good service and meeting the obligations they bid for (user density, speed guarantees) with Starlink Gen 1 aren't necessarily the same thing.  They bid a certain performance level.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: rubicondsrv on 08/10/2022 07:53 pm
Wow, that is NOT a good decision.    From the quoted text, i don't see much rational reasoning behind it.

I am a starlink customer, and the service has been very good.    Objectively, it is the only option for many, many locations.   

It should be part of this program.

seems like they have set a policy that if any provider falls below the speed threshold for some amount of time they will lose the funding.

I dont know how much spacex cares about 900m over 10 years, that would determine if they fight the ruling or not. 


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: rubicondsrv on 08/10/2022 07:56 pm

Having good service and meeting the obligations they bid for (user density, speed guarantees) with Starlink Gen 1 aren't necessarily the same thing.  They bid a certain performance level.

And the FCC better apply this evenly, and take funding from any provider that falls below the threshold for similar timeframes. 

historically rural broadband funds have been granted and the money dissapears intpo pockets without meeting obligations, and no real enforcment occurs. 

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/10/2022 10:55 pm

Having good service and meeting the obligations they bid for (user density, speed guarantees) with Starlink Gen 1 aren't necessarily the same thing.  They bid a certain performance level.

And the FCC better apply this evenly, and take funding from any provider that falls below the threshold for similar timeframes. 

historically rural broadband funds have been granted and the money dissapears intpo pockets without meeting obligations, and no real enforcment occurs.
I wonder if the dropping bit rates in these regions is not sat throughput but not enough Gateway throughput. As in delayed FCC licensing of additional Gateways in these regions to up the overall throughput as Starlink density and subscriber density increases. Note during the time frame that is stated H1 2022 there were 1000 Starlink sats with ISL launched. But sadly it takes about 3 months for them to become operational once launched leaving currently of the 3000 sats only 2500 operational. At the end of 2021 there was ~1600 sats operational. Which by the way is a 56% increase in operational sat density and with that should have supplied enough bandwidth for 2X more subscriptions than was current at the end of 2021 i these regions. So why does the FCC think that a project that can take as much as 3 years before any subscribers will even be affected (a terrestrial cable) vs one that is immediate is not meeting its obligations. The likelihood is that the number of subscriptions in the area is far greater than even the FCC estimated there would be. The gory details would be very interesting in all of this.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: rubicondsrv on 08/10/2022 11:07 pm
So why does the FCC think that a project that can take as much as 3 years before any subscribers will even be affected (a terrestrial cable) vs one that is immediate is not meeting its obligations. The likelihood is that the number of subscriptions in the area is far greater than even the FCC estimated there would be. The gory details would be very interesting in all of this.

part of this is likely the fcc trying to prove they are not going to repeat the past rural broadband failures where money is awarded and spent without meeting the requirements.   

cutting starlink is easy because it will be deployed regardless of the money, so the overall impact is limited.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Lars-J on 08/10/2022 11:26 pm
If Starlink doesn’t meet the criteria, what other broadband service is being rolled out to the underserved areas that does meet the criteria? (I’m no talking about fiber in cities)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: rubicondsrv on 08/10/2022 11:52 pm
If Starlink doesn’t meet the criteria, what other broadband service is being rolled out to the underserved areas that does meet the criteria? (I’m no talking about fiber in cities)


In some areas nothing meets the criteria, nor does any proposed solution. 

the problem is not new, and many ISP's have taken money to cover such areas only to either fail to deliver the promised levels of service or not covered the more challenging parts of the promised areas, and instead of funds being taken back they keep the money by claiming it is better than nothing and that having to pay back the money would harm the few customers they bothered to cover.

Even in cities money has been given to ISPs to expand service only to not get anything approaching promised results.

this is likely an attempt by the FCC to appear to be doing something about this non performance problem without meaningfully impacting anyone. 

starlink will be deployed regardless of the money, and the other provider that had money taken covered a small number of customers at a very high price.   






Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Redclaws on 08/11/2022 12:09 am
If Starlink doesn’t meet the criteria, what other broadband service is being rolled out to the underserved areas that does meet the criteria? (I’m no talking about fiber in cities)


In some areas nothing meets the criteria, nor does any proposed solution. 

the problem is not new, and many ISP's have taken money to cover such areas only to either fail to deliver the promised levels of service or not covered the more challenging parts of the promised areas, and instead of funds being taken back they keep the money by claiming it is better than nothing and that having to pay back the money would harm the few customers they bothered to cover.

Even in cities money has been given to ISPs to expand service only to not get anything approaching promised results.

this is likely an attempt by the FCC to appear to be doing something about this non performance problem without meaningfully impacting anyone. 

starlink will be deployed regardless of the money, and the other provider that had money taken covered a small number of customers at a very high price.

I think “Starlink will be deployed regardless” is a huge factor here, honestly.  The purpose is to create access options where they wouldn’t otherwise exist.

I love Starlink and I like that they got the money, but …. It could perhaps be better used?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: rubicondsrv on 08/11/2022 12:16 am

I love Starlink and I like that they got the money, but …. It could perhaps be better used?

if they can avoid the normal failings of rural broadband deployments it could definitely be better used.   

otherwise it is not going to do anything, or if it does it will only last a few years until the money dries up and the providers neglect the new lines. 

my current ISP doesn't even bother with right of way tree clearance when trees are hanging off the wires, they wait until something completely breaks and as a result whenever the wind blows or it rains the internet is intermittent. 

this is why so much pressure is on the fcc to aggressively penalize any failings, most of the prior attempts have failed to deliver.



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/11/2022 01:12 am
Modern games are ridiculous bandwidth hogs. It’s absurd.
Most aren't, because they need to work over a wide range of consumer connections.

Source: me, I work on a several of them...
It's the game updates that really bash the bandwidth for me. I've got too many games in my steam library, I guess.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: abaddon on 08/11/2022 01:26 am
Modern games are ridiculous bandwidth hogs. It’s absurd.
Most aren't, because they need to work over a wide range of consumer connections.

Source: me, I work on a several of them...
It's the game updates that really bash the bandwidth for me. I've got too many games in my steam library, I guess.
That’s fair, game updates can sometimes be ridiculously large and frequent.  Going through your library occasionally and clearing out games you’re not playing can help quite a bit.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: CT Space Guy on 08/11/2022 11:57 am
Perhaps SpaceX is not qualified in the same way that Tesla was not qualified to be at the White House for the EV summit back in August
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: r8ix on 08/11/2022 02:34 pm
Perhaps SpaceX is not qualified in the same way that Tesla was not qualified to be at the White House for the EV summit back in August

“ Republican Commissioner Brendan Carr issued his own statement after the announcement — saying he did not know about the FCC’s decision until the press release, disagreeing with the decision. 

“We should be making it easier for unserved communities to get service, not rejecting a proven satellite technology that is delivering robust, high-speed service today,” Carr wrote. “To be clear, this is a decision that tells families in states across the country that they should just keep waiting on the wrong side of the digital divide even though we have the technology to improve their lives now.””

https://www.satellitetoday.com/broadband/2022/08/10/fcc-cancels-starlink-funding-for-rural-broadband-program/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/11/2022 03:19 pm
Perhaps SpaceX is not qualified in the same way that Tesla was not qualified to be at the White House for the EV summit back in August

“ Republican Commissioner Brendan Carr issued his own statement after the announcement — saying he did not know about the FCC’s decision until the press release, disagreeing with the decision. 

“We should be making it easier for unserved communities to get service, not rejecting a proven satellite technology that is delivering robust, high-speed service today,” Carr wrote. “To be clear, this is a decision that tells families in states across the country that they should just keep waiting on the wrong side of the digital divide even though we have the technology to improve their lives now.””

https://www.satellitetoday.com/broadband/2022/08/10/fcc-cancels-starlink-funding-for-rural-broadband-program/

The FCC news pulling the Starlink agreement was odd, and doesn't help achieve the stated goal of rural broadband.

However, now Starlink is free to do as they wish and don't have to worry about any additional measures to comlpy with government programs.

At the end of the 10 years that this would have gone on, I think we will see that the FCC funds are insignificant to what Starlink will be doing.  I think it's going to crush competition and will eventually be a historic cash generating machine (that funds Mars colonization)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: EspenU on 08/11/2022 04:28 pm
A Belgian security researcher seems to have hacked a Stalink dish. What kind of damage could this kind of hacking do to the network if(when) done by someone with less than pure intentions?
Quote
It cost a researcher only $25 worth of parts to create a tool that allows custom code to run on the satellite dishes.
Quote
At the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas, Wouters will detail how a series of hardware vulnerabilities allow attackers to access the Starlink system and run custom code on the devices.
Quote
Once attached to the Starlink dish, the homemade printed circuit board (PCB) is able to launch a fault injection attack—temporarily shorting the system—to help bypass Starlink’s security protections. This “glitch” allows Wouters to get into previously locked parts of the Starlink system.

Full Wired article: https://www.wired.com/story/starlink-internet-dish-hack/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 08/11/2022 04:35 pm
 If the initial fiber subsidy costs hold, they'll be spending about $1500 per connection. To avoid spending $600 to subsidize a Starlink dish. Not to mention (Why does everybody say that when they're about to mention something?) that fiber will take much longer to get to these remote places.
 I'm sold.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: rubicondsrv on 08/11/2022 05:16 pm
If the initial fiber subsidy cost hold, they'll be spending about $1500 per connection. To avoid spending $600 to subsidize a Starlink dish. Not to mention (Why does everybody say that when they're about to mention something?) that fiber will take much longer to get to these remote places.
 I'm sold.

and how much subsidy will be needed to force the ISP's to maintain those fiber lines rather than just installing them and then letting them rot in place like most rural telecom infrastructure.


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/11/2022 05:25 pm
If Starlink doesn’t meet the criteria, what other broadband service is being rolled out to the underserved areas that does meet the criteria? (I’m no talking about fiber in cities)


In some areas nothing meets the criteria, nor does any proposed solution. 

the problem is not new, and many ISP's have taken money to cover such areas only to either fail to deliver the promised levels of service or not covered the more challenging parts of the promised areas, and instead of funds being taken back they keep the money by claiming it is better than nothing and that having to pay back the money would harm the few customers they bothered to cover.

Even in cities money has been given to ISPs to expand service only to not get anything approaching promised results.

this is likely an attempt by the FCC to appear to be doing something about this non performance problem without meaningfully impacting anyone. 

starlink will be deployed regardless of the money, and the other provider that had money taken covered a small number of customers at a very high price.
Here's one that's working. I'm rootin for this guy.


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/man-who-built-isp-instead-of-paying-comcast-50k-expands-to-hundreds-of-homes/?comments=1 (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/man-who-built-isp-instead-of-paying-comcast-50k-expands-to-hundreds-of-homes/?comments=1)


If the problem is FCC licensing for gateways, a suggested possibility, a big harry lawsuit would be in order. If it's teething problems a lawsuit might not be the best way to go. He IS missing the numbers.


One option might be to wait for the usual suspects to bid on what SX is vacating, then protest that with fully deployed systems they don't hit the numbers. Highlighting past non-performance on these bids wouldn't hurt.


In the meantime, maybe limit new subscriptions in the cells covered by the bid and get the numbers up in anticipation of another shot at the bid.


If this doesn't work, just drop it. Then concentrate  on putting legacy shit performance bid winner out of business and scoop up their orphaned customers. Vengeance is best served cold.  ;D
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/11/2022 05:29 pm
If the initial fiber subsidy cost hold, they'll be spending about $1500 per connection. To avoid spending $600 to subsidize a Starlink dish. Not to mention (Why does everybody say that when they're about to mention something?) that fiber will take much longer to get to these remote places.
 I'm sold.
Have you ever considered fiber to the bike?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/11/2022 05:40 pm
If the initial fiber subsidy cost hold, they'll be spending about $1500 per connection. To avoid spending $600 to subsidize a Starlink dish. Not to mention (Why does everybody say that when they're about to mention something?) that fiber will take much longer to get to these remote places.
 I'm sold.

and how much subsidy will be needed to force the ISP's to maintain those fiber lines rather than just installing them and then letting them rot in place like most rural telecom infrastructure.
That's a hard one. Probably too late now but if a subsidy is over a 10 year period isn't it reasonable to expect performance be guaranteed for 10 years? Ten years after a connection is made it would still have to make the numbers.


Unfortunately a lot of system degradation would be after the subsidy money has dried up. FCC would have to claw it back which is harder than withholding it. Definitely no more subsidy money to the bad actors for a human lifetime or two.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: rubicondsrv on 08/11/2022 05:47 pm
That's a hard one. Probably too late now but if a subsidy is over a 10 year period isn't it reasonable to expect performance be guaranteed for 10 years? Ten years after a connection is made it would still have to make the numbers.


Unfortunately a lot of system degradation would be after the subsidy money has dried up. FCC would have to claw it back which is harder than withholding it. Definitely no more subsidy money to the bad actors for a human lifetime or two.

that has been the problem where I have lived.  there was an initial build out of at the time high speed DSL, and once it was done the ISP's just let it rot in place.

occasionally they would upgrade the service, but even if you were in the areas upgraded if the line quality was not good enough for the service they would tell you you were no longer eligible because they would not pay to fix the lines. 

At my current location I have been badgering the company to fix the tree problems for years and they do nothing.  Some of the same fallen trees have been hanging off the wires the entire time I have lived here. 


   
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Roy_H on 08/13/2022 05:01 am
I find it so frustrating! This is an industry wide problem, no service. I cannot order a Starlink terminal because I am registered with them. When I try to place an order, I get a message "this email address is already taken" so they expect me to supply a different email address which I don't have and don't want to make one just to order Starlink. Starlink support is zero help. They have a long list of common questions with canned answers. If your problem is not on the list you are SOL. No longer possible to leave a message for support.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Roy_H on 08/13/2022 05:44 am
I find it so frustrating!...
Aha! Apparently if you pick a listed question, it asks you if you are satisfied with the answer. If you select thumbs down, then you get the option to message support.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 08/14/2022 04:59 am
A Belgian security researcher seems to have hacked a Stalink dish. What kind of damage could this kind of hacking do to the network if(when) done by someone with less than pure intentions?

SpaceX published a white paper on Starlink security in response: https://api.starlink.com/public-files/StarlinkWelcomesSecurityResearchersBringOnTheBugs.pdf
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 08/14/2022 05:32 am
Starlink satellites encounter Russian ASAT debris squalls (https://spacenews.com/starlink-satellites-encounter-russian-asat-debris-squalls/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
Debris from a Russian antisatellite weapon demonstration that caused “squalls” of close approaches to satellites earlier this year is now affecting a new series of Starlink satellites.

During a presentation at a Secure World Foundation event during the Small Satellite Conference here Aug. 8, Dan Oltrogge, chief scientist at COMSPOC, said his company found a “conjunction squall” affecting Starlink satellites Aug. 6, with a spike in the number of close approaches of debris from the former Cosmos 1408 satellite.

That debris, created when a Russian direct-ascent ASAT destroyed Cosmos 1408 in a November 2021 test, is in an orbit that lines up with satellites in sun-synchronous orbit. COMSPOC found earlier this year that this created surges of close approaches, or conjunctions, as the satellites run head-on into the debris.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 08/15/2022 09:44 pm
U.S. Air Force testing SpaceX Starlink as a communications option for supporting F-35A fighter jet
Quote
The Starlink system provided speeds up to 30 times faster during the week long test.
https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/u-s-air-force-testing-spacex-starlink-as-a-communications-option-for-supporting-f-35a-fighter-jet/
Query about military use before laser Inter Satellite Links are universally available...

Could the military coordinate with SpaceX to put a temporary base station at some safe distance if there isn't existing coverage?

What would be the logistics of something like that? Possibly SpaceX / civilians embedded?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 08/16/2022 08:40 am
U.S. Air Force testing SpaceX Starlink as a communications option for supporting F-35A fighter jet
Quote
The Starlink system provided speeds up to 30 times faster during the week long test.
https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/u-s-air-force-testing-spacex-starlink-as-a-communications-option-for-supporting-f-35a-fighter-jet/
Query about military use before laser Inter Satellite Links are universally available...

Could the A military coordinate with SpaceX to put a temporary base station at some safe distance if there isn't existing coverage?

What would be the logistics of something like that? Possibly SpaceX / civilians embedded?


Popping up a gateway up in Kyiv would be a great demo. They have less than ideal coverage in eastern ukraine at the moment...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Kiwi53 on 08/16/2022 09:57 pm
U.S. Air Force testing SpaceX Starlink as a communications option for supporting F-35A fighter jet
Quote
The Starlink system provided speeds up to 30 times faster during the week long test.
https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/u-s-air-force-testing-spacex-starlink-as-a-communications-option-for-supporting-f-35a-fighter-jet/
Query about military use before laser Inter Satellite Links are universally available...

Could the A military coordinate with SpaceX to put a temporary base station at some safe distance if there isn't existing coverage?

What would be the logistics of something like that? Possibly SpaceX / civilians embedded?

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606X using Tapatalk

Popping up a gateway up in Kyiv would be a great demo. They have less than ideal coverage in eastern ukraine at the moment...

That would be a relatively large and temptingly soft target for Russian aircraft & missile attack.
It would need extensive anti-aircraft and anti-missile defenses
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 08/16/2022 11:07 pm
That would be a relatively large and temptingly soft target for Russian aircraft & missile attack.
It would need extensive anti-aircraft and anti-missile defenses
No, it would require three days to put spare units in for less than the cost of a cruise missile, a lot less than the cost of a plane and the system would still work like it does today until they're done. Causing the Russians to waste resources would be a major benefit.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/17/2022 01:53 am
They seem to be providing good enough coverage using secure ground stations in Poland and Turkey.

One has to wonder if when satelites are available they turn on the interlinks over Eastern Ukraine. While not able to provide 24/7 coverage,  it would provide some real world data on how the interlinks perform and provide better coverage.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 08/17/2022 02:11 am
There's speculation on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/StarlinkEngineering/comments/wkv8s0/working_using_mainly_laser_interconnect_sats/) that ISL is already in operation with 70% uptime, this is based on tests done by a user in Australia, at location 2,500km away from the nearest gateway.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 08/17/2022 03:48 am
There's speculation on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/StarlinkEngineering/comments/wkv8s0/working_using_mainly_laser_interconnect_sats/) that ISL is already in operation with 70% uptime, this is based on tests done by a user in Australia, at location 2,500km away from the nearest gateway.
I don't know exactly how ISL works, but if it's a simple forward/rearward, left/right setup it might not be at it's best before that shell is complete.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 08/17/2022 12:41 pm
So, I did Steam Remote Play for 5 hours going Starlink -> Steam Seattle CDN -> Roommate's FTTH watching SLS arrive at the pad, and because it was downtime and not peak hours, I reached this conclusion:

The modulation may be too aggressive on upload. Using a lower modulation but a wider RF frequency bandwidth might help mitigate narrowband noise. (I think) Or it could just be crowding of the allocated band.

Rest of the time, and especially during peak hours, it's simply packet loss that causes loss of upload bandwidth.

Also, been experiencing ridiculously high ping spikes because of some ISL satellites going to really far away ground stations. On one hand, latency adds to packet loss, but then sometimes when the PoP pings are fine, there's insane amounts of buffer bloat sometimes going to a overwhelmed satellite (or it's routing to the public internet) before it levels out. Like a UT DDoS to a single satellite/exit node.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/17/2022 08:32 pm
That would be a relatively large and temptingly soft target for Russian aircraft & missile attack.
It would need extensive anti-aircraft and anti-missile defenses
No, it would require three days to put spare units in for less than the cost of a cruise missile, a lot less than the cost of a plane and the system would still work like it does today until they're done. Causing the Russians to waste resources would be a major benefit.
An added benefit, especially if they use decoys, is it's all drone chum. Degrade Ivan's recon. More valuable than misdirecting delivery systems, not that wasting assets isn't a good thing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/17/2022 09:08 pm
An added benefit, especially if they use decoys, is it's all drone chum. Degrade Ivan's recon. More valuable than misdirecting delivery systems, not that wasting assets isn't a good thing.

Considering the poor accuracy to date of Russian precision weapons. All a ground station in the Ukraine would accomplish is more missiles being fired into civilian areas.  Increased civillian casualties to provide better service to an area that already has starlink service seems like a poor trade.

Don't get me wrong,  once the war is over,  I fully expect Ukrainian ground stations to be as numerous as sunflowers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Rebel44 on 08/17/2022 11:40 pm
An added benefit, especially if they use decoys, is it's all drone chum. Degrade Ivan's recon. More valuable than misdirecting delivery systems, not that wasting assets isn't a good thing.

Considering the poor accuracy to date of Russian precision weapons. All a ground station in the Ukraine would accomplish is more missiles being fired into civilian areas.  Increased civillian casualties to provide better service to an area that already has starlink service seems like a poor trade.

Don't get me wrong,  once the war is over,  I fully expect Ukrainian ground stations to be as numerous as sunflowers.

The gateway can be located outside of the urban area - all you really need is access to an optical fiber connection with sufficient capacity and some space for antennas.

Add some visually similar decoys and not advertising the gateway location and Russian missiles should not be a major problem (it helps that Russia has already exhausted a large % of its ballistic/cruise missiles, so they are not very likely to waste a bunch more just to wreck an easily replaceable Starlink gateway).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/17/2022 11:54 pm
Fiber, which by definition are not available outside of urban areas.

Besides a station in Romania, half way between the Polish and Turkish ground stations would make more sense. That or the northern coast of Turkey, assuming fiber exists.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/18/2022 09:02 pm
Fiber, which by definition are not available outside of urban areas.

Besides a station in Romania, half way between the Polish and Turkish ground stations would make more sense. That or the northern coast of Turkey, assuming fiber exists.
Fiber only available in cities? True for last mile but not long haul. At least in the US. Ukraine? Hard to say. I'd guess there would be fiber for international phone & data. Locate a ground station on or near existing long haul and splice in. Run a spur if necessary.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 08/18/2022 09:36 pm
Fiber, which by definition are not available outside of urban areas.

Besides a station in Romania, half way between the Polish and Turkish ground stations would make more sense. That or the northern coast of Turkey, assuming fiber exists.
What in the world do you think "by definition" means?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 08/20/2022 02:19 pm
The Gen2 on Falcon 9 thing is probably better discussed in this thread:

New Gen2 filing: https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=16832647

<snip>

But the biggest bombshell is SpaceX will use both F9 and Starship to launch Gen2, and it sounds like the Gen2 launched on F9 will be smaller:

Quote
As another example, SpaceX is proud to inform the Commission that it has decided to further accelerate its already record-breaking deployment schedule for its Gen2 system by using both its new Starship vehicle as well as its tested and dependable Falcon 9. While SpaceX will use technically identical satellites on both rockets, the physical structures will be tailored to meet the physical dimensions of the rockets on which they will be launched. In no event will any satellite exceed the overly conservative DAS analysis SpaceX provided to the Commission. To be clear, while SpaceX plans to accelerate deployment by using both of the rockets in its fleet, it remains committed to deploying all of its satellites—whether from Starship or from Falcon 9—into orbits described in Configuration 1 as described in its Amendment from August 2021 and confirmed in its letter to the Commission in January of this year. Specifically, SpaceX plans to launch satellites for its Gen2 constellation beginning with its three 500-kilometer shells, followed by satellites in its lower-altitude shells. The result will be that more Americans will receive high-quality broadband faster.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Alexphysics on 08/20/2022 02:49 pm
Well that was a quick way to make it go public, the decision was taken just merely a few weeks ago heh.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: butters on 08/20/2022 03:19 pm
So, the 7m 1.25mT Starlink v2 designed to fit Starship will be "technically identical" in performance to a 3.2m "Starlink v2" that fits on F9? Are we expecting the mass of the F9 Starlink v2 to be closer to 1.25mT than the current 300kg? Much thicker to accommodate a solar array with an area similar to the Starship version? Or do we think the Starship version has a ridiculously oversized chassis with a solar array comparable to v1.5?

It's so strange to have two very different sized satellites that are described as technically identical. Especially in the context of Elon's suggestion that v2 will have several times the performance. It seems like either that is no longer true, or the Starship variant is very poorly optimized compared to the F9 variant of v2.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 08/20/2022 03:57 pm
So, the 7m 1.25mT Starlink v2 designed to fit Starship will be "technically identical" in performance to a 3.2m "Starlink v2" that fits on F9? Are we expecting the mass of the F9 Starlink v2 to be closer to 1.25mT than the current 300kg? Much thicker to accommodate a solar array with an area similar to the Starship version? Or do we think the Starship version has a ridiculously oversized chassis with a solar array comparable to v1.5?

It's so strange to have two very different sized satellites that are described as technically identical. Especially in the context of Elon's suggestion that v2 will have several times the performance. It seems like either that is no longer true, or the Starship variant is very poorly optimized compared to the F9 variant of v2.

Could it be that the "poorly optimized" version is just a lot less expensive to manufacture than the miniaturized version? They may be willing to take the price hit to get them lofted, not just to get the shell completed faster but to get some real space testing of the new design in.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/20/2022 04:09 pm
What were the original dimensions? Weren’t they something like 7mx3.5m? In which case they can just be stacked vertically in an F9 fairing.

At 1.25 tons each,  F9 can’t launch more than about a dozen anyway in reusable format. So flat horizontal stacking is pointless.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gongora on 08/20/2022 04:24 pm
The 7m long sats were designed specifically for Starship, it wouldn't make any sense to try launching them on F9.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/20/2022 06:51 pm
So, the 7m 1.25mT Starlink v2 designed to fit Starship will be "technically identical" in performance to a 3.2m "Starlink v2" that fits on F9? Are we expecting the mass of the F9 Starlink v2 to be closer to 1.25mT than the current 300kg? Much thicker to accommodate a solar array with an area similar to the Starship version? Or do we think the Starship version has a ridiculously oversized chassis with a solar array comparable to v1.5?

It's so strange to have two very different sized satellites that are described as technically identical. Especially in the context of Elon's suggestion that v2 will have several times the performance. It seems like either that is no longer true, or the Starship variant is very poorly optimized compared to the F9 variant of v2.

Could it be that the "poorly optimized" version is just a lot less expensive to manufacture than the miniaturized version? They may be willing to take the price hit to get them lofted, not just to get the shell completed faster but to get some real space testing of the new design in.
Another possibility is the ability to host payloads is removed from the F9 launched version shrinking it and lowering it's max mass.

Currently the sats are rectangles where 2 of them is one level. If you change that to a single square sat per level and possibly just a little thicker such that just over a total of 20+ will fit in a stack before reaching the 15t+ max payload for reusable launch on F9 for Starlinks. Lets say that 23 sats can fit which would in 2 launches 46 = to the polar orbit launches of 46 occurring now. For 23 that would be a mass of as high as 750kg each depending on total launched per flight.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: greybeardengineer on 08/20/2022 07:38 pm
What were the original dimensions? Weren’t they something like 7mx3.5m? In which case they can just be stacked vertically in an F9 fairing.

At 1.25 tons each,  F9 can’t launch more than about a dozen anyway in reusable format. So flat horizontal stacking is pointless.

The V2 bird may have been designed to take sustained g forces in only one direction.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/21/2022 02:46 pm
It's also possible that the some of the parts of the v2 can be folded when launching on a Falcon 9. Just adds some extra hardware, complexity, and cost.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 08/21/2022 11:05 pm
should we start calling them v2SS and V2F9 to make it easier to talk about?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 08/22/2022 12:11 am
I would call it V1.75, callsigns and letters add confusion.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 08/22/2022 02:49 am
Musk has been clear, and the recent FCC filing is clear, these are all v2 satellites, what the FCC filing also called "Gen2".

Let's please not introduce some new version 1.75 as is if they are not full Gen2.

The FCC statement is clear that the sats will be functionally identical;
they will merely be packaged into a different form factor depending on whether they are to be launched on Falcon 9 (smaller v2 form factor for the F9 payload fairing; actual dimensions are not yet publicly released) or whether they can be laid out in the full-size 7-meter width that the v2 sats will have that launch on Starship.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: AmigaClone on 08/22/2022 06:42 am
It will be interesting to see how SpaceX differentiates the two versions internally, and later in it's press announcements.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: whvholst on 08/22/2022 05:02 pm
Fiber, which by definition are not available outside of urban areas.


In the USA maybe. Elsewhere in the developed world your mileage will vary greatly. Especially in Eastern Europe.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 08/25/2022 06:15 pm


https://www.fcc.gov/document/carr-criticizes-fcc-infrastructure-reversal


CARR CRITICIZES AGENCY’S ABRUPT REVERSAL OF $885 MILLION INFRASTRUCTURE AWARD TO ELON MUSK’S STARLINK
Unjustified Backtracking Costs Taxpayers, Leaves Families on Wrong Side of Digital Divide
WASHINGTON, DC, August 24, 2022—In a recent move, FCC leadership abruptly reversed the agency’s decision to issue Elon Musk’s Starlink an $885 million infrastructure award that Starlink had won at an FCC auction in 2020, and it did so without a vote or authorization from the agency’s Commissioners.  As the winning bidder, Starlink had a commitment to provide high-speed Internet service to 642,925 unserved rural homes and businesses across 35 states.  Instead, many of those families and communities will now be stuck waiting on the wrong the side of the digital divide.  While the agency had limited remit to review the 2020 award, its decision here plainly exceeds the scope of that authority.  More broadly, this agency action mirrors a broader set of infrastructure missteps by the Administration—ones that Carr has previously highlighted.
 
Commissioner Carr issued the following statement:

“I was surprised to find out by an FCC press release issued earlier this month that agency leadership had suddenly reversed course on an $885 million infrastructure award that Elon Musk’s Starlink won in 2020 to provide high-speed Internet service to unconnected Americans.  The agency’s decision here mirrors the Administration’s broader set of infrastructure missteps by costing taxpayer dollars while leaving rural communities behind.

“As an initial matter, this a very curious outcome because the reasons the agency offers for backtracking on this infrastructure decision do not withstand even casual scrutiny.  Indeed, the reversal constitutes clear error and plainly exceeds agency authority.

“First, the FCC’s announcement claims that the agency is acting to ‘avoid extensive delays in providing needed service to rural areas.’  Yet that is exactly the outcome that this decision ensures.  The FCC’s 2020 award to Starlink secured a commitment for the delivery of high-speed Internet service to 642,925 unserved rural homes and businesses across 35 states.  By reversing course, the FCC has just chosen to vaporize that commitment and replace it with . . . nothing.  That’s a decision to leave families waiting on the wrong side of the digital divide when we have the technology to get them high-speed service today.

“Second, the agency decision casts aspersion on the Starlink system in turning heel on the Commission’s 2020 award—calling the technology “risky” and “still developing.”  But those arguments do not bear out.  To start, the one set of speed test data the FCC cites shows that Starlink’s speeds have increased significantly year over year, not decreased over that time period.  And in any event, the relevant speed benchmarks that the full Commission imposed in 2020 on Starlink and all other infrastructure award winners do not kick in for another three years.  Particularly given the speeds Starlink is already offering and the pace with which it is continuing to launch satellites, the FCC’s decision offers no reasoned basis for determining that Starlink was incapable of meeting its regulatory obligations.  In fact, Starlink is already exceeding those benchmark speeds in other countries where their services are online.  Indeed, the skepticism the FCC expresses here is odd because it is in direct conflict with the confidence expressed by other components of the federal government—including the Air Force, which just inked a nearly $2 million deal with Starlink to deliver high-speed Internet service to military bases.  In the end, this action reads as an untimely and improper effort to revisit the full Commission’s 2020 decision to allow satellite providers to compete for awards, rather than the limited review authorized.

“Third, the agency cites Starlink’s price point in denying it this universal service award.  Yet right now, the FCC is providing universal service awards for far slower Internet services that cost consumers far more.  Indeed, when I learned about the FCC’s decision while on a work trip to Napakiak, Alaska, I heard from residents there and in surrounding villages that are paying hundreds of dollars every single month for services supported by the FCC’s universal service awards that deliver speeds less than 1/10th of Starlink’s.  Moreover, the 2020 Commission-level decision governing the Starlink award and similar ones did not authorize staff to deny a winning bid based on equipment price point considerations—let alone based on an arbitrary one selectively applied to one winner.  As such, the denial here is without a lawful basis.

“Fourth, this agency decision will hit taxpayers in their pocketbooks.  To the extent the federal government ever makes another commitment to serve these communities, it will cost us orders of magnitude more money to do so.  Indeed, while the Commission’s 2020 award secured a deal to bring high-speed service to all of these areas for $885 million in support, extending high-speed fiber lines to these same areas will likely cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 billion based on past bidding patterns and analysis—more once you start accounting for inflation.

“The problems compound from there.  After all, there is a limited pot of federal infrastructure dollars, and we are now far more likely to exhaust those resources before getting every American connected.

“More broadly, though, this decision reflects many of the same missteps that the Administration has been making as it implements federal broadband infrastructure programs.  We should correct course, adopt a technology neutral approach, and in doing so ensure that we prioritize the needs of Americans that remain unserved today.”

###

Office of Commissioner Brendan Carr
www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/brendan-carr
Media Contact:  Greg Watson
(202) 418-0658 or [email protected]





Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/25/2022 07:22 pm


https://www.fcc.gov/document/carr-criticizes-fcc-infrastructure-reversal (https://www.fcc.gov/document/carr-criticizes-fcc-infrastructure-reversal)


CARR CRITICIZES AGENCY’S ABRUPT REVERSAL OF $885 MILLION INFRASTRUCTURE AWARD TO ELON MUSK’S STARLINK
Unjustified Backtracking Costs Taxpayers, Leaves Families on Wrong Side of Digital Divide
WASHINGTON, DC, August 24, 2022—In a recent move, FCC leadership abruptly reversed the agency’s decision to issue Elon Musk’s Starlink an $885 million infrastructure award that Starlink had won at an FCC auction in 2020, and it did so without a vote or authorization from the agency’s Commissioners.  As the winning bidder, Starlink had a commitment to provide high-speed Internet service to 642,925 unserved rural homes and businesses across 35 states.  Instead, many of those families and communities will now be stuck waiting on the wrong the side of the digital divide.  While the agency had limited remit to review the 2020 award, its decision here plainly exceeds the scope of that authority.  More broadly, this agency action mirrors a broader set of infrastructure missteps by the Administration—ones that Carr has previously highlighted.
 
Commissioner Carr issued the following statement:

“I was surprised to find out by an FCC press release issued earlier this month that agency leadership had suddenly reversed course on an $885 million infrastructure award that Elon Musk’s Starlink won in 2020 to provide high-speed Internet service to unconnected Americans.  The agency’s decision here mirrors the Administration’s broader set of infrastructure missteps by costing taxpayer dollars while leaving rural communities behind.

“As an initial matter, this a very curious outcome because the reasons the agency offers for backtracking on this infrastructure decision do not withstand even casual scrutiny.  Indeed, the reversal constitutes clear error and plainly exceeds agency authority.

“First, the FCC’s announcement claims that the agency is acting to ‘avoid extensive delays in providing needed service to rural areas.’  Yet that is exactly the outcome that this decision ensures.  The FCC’s 2020 award to Starlink secured a commitment for the delivery of high-speed Internet service to 642,925 unserved rural homes and businesses across 35 states.  By reversing course, the FCC has just chosen to vaporize that commitment and replace it with . . . nothing.  That’s a decision to leave families waiting on the wrong side of the digital divide when we have the technology to get them high-speed service today.

“Second, the agency decision casts aspersion on the Starlink system in turning heel on the Commission’s 2020 award—calling the technology “risky” and “still developing.”  But those arguments do not bear out.  To start, the one set of speed test data the FCC cites shows that Starlink’s speeds have increased significantly year over year, not decreased over that time period.  And in any event, the relevant speed benchmarks that the full Commission imposed in 2020 on Starlink and all other infrastructure award winners do not kick in for another three years.  Particularly given the speeds Starlink is already offering and the pace with which it is continuing to launch satellites, the FCC’s decision offers no reasoned basis for determining that Starlink was incapable of meeting its regulatory obligations.  In fact, Starlink is already exceeding those benchmark speeds in other countries where their services are online.  Indeed, the skepticism the FCC expresses here is odd because it is in direct conflict with the confidence expressed by other components of the federal government—including the Air Force, which just inked a nearly $2 million deal with Starlink to deliver high-speed Internet service to military bases.  In the end, this action reads as an untimely and improper effort to revisit the full Commission’s 2020 decision to allow satellite providers to compete for awards, rather than the limited review authorized.

“Third, the agency cites Starlink’s price point in denying it this universal service award.  Yet right now, the FCC is providing universal service awards for far slower Internet services that cost consumers far more.  Indeed, when I learned about the FCC’s decision while on a work trip to Napakiak, Alaska, I heard from residents there and in surrounding villages that are paying hundreds of dollars every single month for services supported by the FCC’s universal service awards that deliver speeds less than 1/10th of Starlink’s.  Moreover, the 2020 Commission-level decision governing the Starlink award and similar ones did not authorize staff to deny a winning bid based on equipment price point considerations—let alone based on an arbitrary one selectively applied to one winner.  As such, the denial here is without a lawful basis.

“Fourth, this agency decision will hit taxpayers in their pocketbooks.  To the extent the federal government ever makes another commitment to serve these communities, it will cost us orders of magnitude more money to do so.  Indeed, while the Commission’s 2020 award secured a deal to bring high-speed service to all of these areas for $885 million in support, extending high-speed fiber lines to these same areas will likely cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 billion based on past bidding patterns and analysis—more once you start accounting for inflation.

“The problems compound from there.  After all, there is a limited pot of federal infrastructure dollars, and we are now far more likely to exhaust those resources before getting every American connected.

“More broadly, though, this decision reflects many of the same missteps that the Administration has been making as it implements federal broadband infrastructure programs.  We should correct course, adopt a technology neutral approach, and in doing so ensure that we prioritize the needs of Americans that remain unserved today.”

###

Office of Commissioner Brendan Carr
www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/brendan-carr (http://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/brendan-carr)
Media Contact:  Greg Watson
(202) 418-0658 or [email protected]
Wow!


The kabuki dance of government bureaucracy is painful to watch but it's absolutely necessary to avoid exactly this. Looks like somebody at FCC was working past their pay grade. Wonder what's next. Stay tuned.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 08/26/2022 03:57 am
Hmm, F9 V2 seems to be the backup option and Starship is still the primary launcher.

So entertain me this, does a larger antenna increase the accuracy of beamforming to target client phones?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/26/2022 04:01 am
Hmm, F9 V2 seems to be the backup option and Starship is still the primary launcher.

So entertain me this, does a larger antenna increase the accuracy of beamforming to target client phones?
Accuracy is not the way I'd describe it, but yes.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: soyuzu on 08/26/2022 05:34 am
Is it possible that the cell antenna will be on the backside of solar array?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 08/26/2022 06:49 am
Is it possible that the cell antenna will be on the backside of solar array!
No.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/26/2022 02:15 pm
Hmm, F9 V2 seems to be the backup option and Starship is still the primary launcher.

So entertain me this, does a larger antenna increase the accuracy of beamforming to target client phones?
I think the term is "directivity". An antenna has a beam pattern, which for a real antenna is a complicated gain map on the sphere surrounding the antenna. The theoretical single-point antenna is omnidirectional with no difference in gain anywhere on the sphere: it has a gain of 0 dB in all directions.  As the antenna size increases, it focuses on a smaller percentage of the sphere. The antenna shape determines which parts of the sphere get this focus. For an ideal parabolic antenna, the gain curve will be radially symmetric around a single focus point at which the gain reaches it peak. A bigger parabola will have a higher peak gain and the gain will fall off more rapidly away from the peak: i.e., the cell size will be smaller. A phased array antenna approximates this parabolic antenna. A phased-array antenna cannot be better than an ideal parabolic of the same size. Real antennas have all sorts of strange effects that change this model, with terms like "back lobe" side lobe" and "spikes".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_(antenna)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/26/2022 03:15 pm
What are the chances that SpaceX will just launched Starlink v2mini comsats for the first iteration of the first Starlink Gen 2 orbital shell deployed by Starship? Since in theory each layer in the Starship pez dispenser could hold 5 of the Starlink v2mini comsats.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: pyromatter on 08/26/2022 03:25 pm
Appeals court rejects Viasat, Dish and The Balance Group challenge of the FCC's approval of Starlink.

https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1563178903736160257

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf

"One competitor contends that the FCC did not adequately consider the risk of signal interference, a claim we reject on the merits."

"Another competitor, joined by an environmental group, raises a claim under the National Environmental Policy Act. We decline to consider it because the environmental group lacks Article III standing, and the competitor’s asserted injury does not fall within the zone of interests protected by NEPA."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 08/26/2022 03:58 pm
Hmm, F9 V2 seems to be the backup option and Starship is still the primary launcher.

So entertain me this, does a larger antenna increase the accuracy of beamforming to target client phones?
I think the term is "directivity". An antenna has a beam pattern, which for a real antenna is a complicated gain map on the sphere surrounding the antenna. The theoretical single-point antenna is omnidirectional with no difference in gain anywhere on the sphere: it has a gain of 0 dB in all directions.  As the antenna size increases, it focuses on a smaller percentage of the sphere. The antenna shape determines which parts of the sphere get this focus. For an ideal parabolic antenna, the gain curve will be radially symmetric around a single focus point at which the gain reaches it peak. A bigger parabola will have a higher peak gain and the gain will fall off more rapidly away from the peak: i.e., the cell size will be smaller. A phased array antenna approximates this parabolic antenna. A phased-array antenna cannot be better than an ideal parabolic of the same size. Real antennas have all sorts of strange effects that change this model, with terms like "back lobe" side lobe" and "spikes".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_(antenna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_(antenna))
If I may interject:


The bigger the antenna, the tighter (smaller) a beam it can form. This can put the same amount of transmit energy into a smaller target space or a lesser amount of transmit energy into into the smaller target space keeping the received ground signal at the same level.


On the receive side a larger antenna can be more sensitive or target more end users at the same sensitivity.


Theres more to it but that's a good starting point.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Vultur on 08/26/2022 08:59 pm
and the competitor’s asserted injury does not fall within the zone of interests protected by NEPA."

That sounds like a very promising precedent for future space projects.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: soyuzu on 08/27/2022 01:06 pm
Is it possible that the cell antenna will be on the backside of solar array?
No.

Isn’t this the same architecture adopted by AST spacemobile?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: AmigaClone on 08/27/2022 02:07 pm
should we start calling them v2SS and V2F9 to make it easier to talk about?

In the presentation revealing the goal of connecting Cell phones to Starlink, Elon Musk referred to the Starlink V2 launched by a F9 as 'Mini-V2.'
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 08/28/2022 04:07 am
and the competitor’s asserted injury does not fall within the zone of interests protected by NEPA."

That sounds like a very promising precedent for future space projects.

I'm far from a lawyer, the way I read it, this ruling closed the door for Starlink competitors to challenge them using NEPA, but it didn't rule out application of NEPA in space. So it's possible that someone who has a standing, for example a disgruntled astronomer, could still try this trick in the future.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 09/02/2022 04:53 am
Via r/Starlink:

SpaceX ground station under construction in Anchorage, Alaska. (https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/x3hx3p/spacex_ground_station_under_construction_in/)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 09/02/2022 05:16 am
Just making a personal report on Best Effort.

So far so good. I haven't got it mounted yet, but just setting it out on the well house roof with obvious trees in the way I'm getting fine performance for general browsing and HD streaming and large file downloads. Bandwidth is all over the place from down to 5 to up to 130, all of which is still better than Viasat. Far better, and cheaper.

And rain fade doesn't seem as much an issue.

I'm really looking forward to getting it up above the treeline on a mast.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 09/02/2022 08:24 pm
Musk has been clear, and the recent FCC filing is clear, these are all v2 satellites, what the FCC filing also called "Gen2".

Let's please not introduce some new version 1.75 as is if they are not full Gen2.

The FCC statement is clear that the sats will be functionally identical;
they will merely be packaged into a different form factor depending on whether they are to be launched on Falcon 9 (smaller v2 form factor for the F9 payload fairing; actual dimensions are not yet publicly released) or whether they can be laid out in the full-size 7-meter width that the v2 sats will have that launch on Starship.

A feature of Gen2 is that on the feeder line (Earth to  Space) not only the Ka but also the Q band is used, and in the Ka band the frequencies are reused 4 times. This means that instead of 2 parabolic antennas, as on the Gen1 (V1 or V1.5) satellite, you will need to install 8, therefore, the dimensions of the satellite must be larger. If you refuse to reuse frequencies or using the Q band, then the satellite can be made more compact
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gongora on 09/07/2022 01:56 am
Looks like the Department of Veterans Affairs signed up for Starlink service.

Link to FPDS entry (https://fpds.gov/ezsearch/jsp/viewLinkController.jsp?agencyID=3600&PIID=36C10A22P0027&modNumber=0&transactionNumber=0&idvAgencyID=&idvPIID=&actionSource=searchScreen&actionCode=&documentVersion=1.5&contractType=AWARD&docType=B%27)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 09/07/2022 03:50 am
Musk has been clear, and the recent FCC filing is clear, these are all v2 satellites, what the FCC filing also called "Gen2".

Let's please not introduce some new version 1.75 as is if they are not full Gen2.

The FCC statement is clear that the sats will be functionally identical;
they will merely be packaged into a different form factor depending on whether they are to be launched on Falcon 9 (smaller v2 form factor for the F9 payload fairing; actual dimensions are not yet publicly released) or whether they can be laid out in the full-size 7-meter width that the v2 sats will have that launch on Starship.

A feature of Gen2 is that on the feeder line (Earth to  Space) not only the Ka but also the Q band is used, and in the Ka band the frequencies are reused 4 times. This means that instead of 2 parabolic antennas, as on the Gen1 (V1 or V1.5) satellite, you will need to install 8, therefore, the dimensions of the satellite must be larger. If you refuse to reuse frequencies or using the Q band, then the satellite can be made more compact
With four antennas you can connect to up to four teleports simultaneously. In general as the satellite moves, it must disconnect from one to swing the antenna to the next teleport that is coming into view, so much of the time the satellite is connected to three, not four, even when four are in view. And of course there are many areas where only one teleport is in view some of the time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 09/12/2022 02:20 am
Wow, Tim Farrar admits "Starlink has won the race for LEO broadband" (http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2022/09/08/starlink-has-won-the-race-for-leo-broadband-what-now/)

Quote
I didn’t think that SpaceX would pull this off, but they did, and today too many people in the industry, who are rightly skeptical of Elon Musk’s litany of unfulfilled promises, remain far too complacent and are continuing to dismiss Starlink as just a consumer service that won’t threaten other parts of the satellite market, or are even suggesting that the network remains economically unviable and is doomed to failure.

However, the dam is starting to break for acceptance of Starlink amongst professional users, with Royal Caribbean’s recent move to deploy Starlink representing just the start of disruption in traditional satellite verticals. And SpaceX’s latest $2B in equity funding should see the company through to late 2023, by which time I expect Starlink to have captured around 1M users and have reached cash flow breakeven (even accounting for ongoing satellite replenishment costs).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: AC in NC on 09/12/2022 02:54 am
Wow, Tim Farrar admits ...
LOL!!!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/12/2022 06:08 am
Wow, Tim Farrar admits "Starlink has won the race for LEO broadband" (http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2022/09/08/starlink-has-won-the-race-for-leo-broadband-what-now/)

Quote
I didn’t think that SpaceX would pull this off, but they did, and today too many people in the industry, who are rightly skeptical of Elon Musk’s litany of unfulfilled promises, remain far too complacent and are continuing to dismiss Starlink as just a consumer service that won’t threaten other parts of the satellite market, or are even suggesting that the network remains economically unviable and is doomed to failure.

However, the dam is starting to break for acceptance of Starlink amongst professional users, with Royal Caribbean’s recent move to deploy Starlink representing just the start of disruption in traditional satellite verticals. And SpaceX’s latest $2B in equity funding should see the company through to late 2023, by which time I expect Starlink to have captured around 1M users and have reached cash flow breakeven (even accounting for ongoing satellite replenishment costs).

1M subscribers by late 2023? They are already on 600k. I think predicting 1M a year from now is lowballing it significantly.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 09/12/2022 06:18 am
Wow, Tim Farrar admits "Starlink has won the race for LEO broadband" (http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2022/09/08/starlink-has-won-the-race-for-leo-broadband-what-now/)

Quote
I didn’t think that SpaceX would pull this off, but they did, and today too many people in the industry, who are rightly skeptical of Elon Musk’s litany of unfulfilled promises, remain far too complacent and are continuing to dismiss Starlink as just a consumer service that won’t threaten other parts of the satellite market, or are even suggesting that the network remains economically unviable and is doomed to failure.

However, the dam is starting to break for acceptance of Starlink amongst professional users, with Royal Caribbean’s recent move to deploy Starlink representing just the start of disruption in traditional satellite verticals. And SpaceX’s latest $2B in equity funding should see the company through to late 2023, by which time I expect Starlink to have captured around 1M users and have reached cash flow breakeven (even accounting for ongoing satellite replenishment costs).

1M subscribers by late 2023? They are already on 600k. I think predicting 1M a year from now is lowballing it significantly.

600K is just the paying customers right? Don't forget the many terminals in Ukraine that are running for free right now...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/12/2022 06:20 am
Wow, Tim Farrar admits "Starlink has won the race for LEO broadband" (http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2022/09/08/starlink-has-won-the-race-for-leo-broadband-what-now/)

Quote
I didn’t think that SpaceX would pull this off, but they did, and today too many people in the industry, who are rightly skeptical of Elon Musk’s litany of unfulfilled promises, remain far too complacent and are continuing to dismiss Starlink as just a consumer service that won’t threaten other parts of the satellite market, or are even suggesting that the network remains economically unviable and is doomed to failure.

However, the dam is starting to break for acceptance of Starlink amongst professional users, with Royal Caribbean’s recent move to deploy Starlink representing just the start of disruption in traditional satellite verticals. And SpaceX’s latest $2B in equity funding should see the company through to late 2023, by which time I expect Starlink to have captured around 1M users and have reached cash flow breakeven (even accounting for ongoing satellite replenishment costs).

1M subscribers by late 2023? They are already on 600k. I think predicting 1M a year from now is lowballing it significantly.

600K is just the paying customers right? Don't forget the many terminals in Ukraine that are running for free right now...

I would guess that’s less than 10,000. So statistically insignificant.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/12/2022 11:13 am
Last May in the Ukraine they where above 10,000 dishes and 150,000k. Now has to be significantly more than that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Reynold on 09/13/2022 07:38 pm
Last May in the Ukraine they where above 10,000 dishes and 150,000k. Now has to be significantly more than that.

Well, I think that when Starlink says they have 600k subscribers, they are referring to the number of dishes, so that would be maybe above 10,000 for Ukraine, but probably below 20,000.  Your 150k number is probably number of people in Ukraine who have used it, by that metric I'm sure Starlink would already be above 2M "users".  The average household in the U.S. is 2.6 people, and I remember one of the early Starlink tests used one dish to bring a whole Native American village online. 

While multiple people using one dish/subscription will justify a lot of people getting the service, and Musk has even talked about villages sharing it in poor parts of the world, the financials for success or failure will be based on paying subscriptions, not "total users". 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/13/2022 08:28 pm
In an environment where the build rate for terminals is 80K to 100K per month. And as well terminals don't sit on the shelf. The 600K value for subscription (subscription is how many terminals are active on the network) was reported several months ago. I thought I remembered it being the reported value toward the end of Spring which was over 3 months ago.

Thus the actual current is probably rapidly approaching 1M and will likely pass it by 1 Oct. The value of "subscriptions when reported will be accurate but will quickly become out of date. Musk just has to read the current active terminals value reported by the computers managing the network. No analysis needed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 09/13/2022 11:41 pm
The vast majority of the current 600K customers were long term deposit holders. Now that Starlink is out of capacity the growth is driven by new customers who are signing up in the areas where capacity is available. You can't project the new growth into the future based on the long term deposit holder-to-customer conversion rate. It's totally reasonable to guess they won't hit 1M customers this year. Half of shell 4 is already online while the other half won't be operational until January-February. And when it goes online it will increase capacity only by 30% (0.5 shell / 1.5 shell already operational). So they can count only on 200K (600 * 30%) new deposit holder-to-customer conversions when shell 4 is complete.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/14/2022 12:17 am
SpaceX seems to be reporting the numbers quarterly.  So,  I would expect an update at some point in the October time frame.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 09/14/2022 01:05 am
The vast majority of the current 600K customers were long term deposit holders. Now that Starlink is out of capacity the growth is driven by new customers who are signing up in the areas where capacity is available. You can't project the new growth into the future based on the long term deposit holder-to-customer conversion rate. It's totally reasonable to guess they won't hit 1M customers this year. Half of shell 4 is already online while the other half won't be operational until January-February. And when it goes online it will increase capacity only by 30% (0.5 shell / 1.5 shell already operational). So they can count only on 200K (600 * 30%) new deposit holder-to-customer conversions when shell 4 is complete.

Welcome to NSF.  Glad to have you here

SX has the potential to open up customers in new markets.  Recent examples like aircraft, rvs and ships are a prime example.  So user growth is only part of the story. 

New markets may only weakly overlap with existing usage of the network.  This helps the revenue growth without being necessarily limited by satellite capacity
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: etiennelev on 09/14/2022 02:57 pm
Gwynne Shotwell was in Paris Monday, where she said to journalists that Starlink currently has 700K subscribers worldwide, and 75K in Europe : https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2022/09/12/internet-par-satellite-starlink-revendique-deja-700-000-clients-dont-6-500-en-france_6141297_3234.html

Quote
[...] ce système de connexion à Internet par satellite revendique désormais 700 000 clients dans le monde et 700 000 autres sur liste d’attente. Le service affichait jusqu’ici 400 000 abonnés. L’entreprise américaine communique pour la première fois sur son nombre de clients en Europe : 75 000, dont 6 500 en France, où le service est disponible depuis mai 2021.

Quote
[...] this satellite Internet connection system now claims 700,000 customers worldwide and another 700,000 on the waiting list. Until now, the service had 400,000 subscribers. For the first time, the U.S. company is reporting its number of customers in Europe: 75,000, including 6,500 in France, where the service has been available since May 2021.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/14/2022 03:23 pm
700,000? With another 700,000 waiting in the wings? Looks to me Starlink has a pretty high chance of reaching 1 million customers by the end of the year, or very close.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 09/15/2022 03:09 am
700,000? With another 700,000 waiting in the wings? Looks to me Starlink has a pretty high chance of reaching 1 million customers by the end of the year, or very close.

1 million subscribers? Guess Elon needs to send the kitty and suit out for dry cleaning soon then...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/15/2022 03:11 am
700,000? With another 700,000 waiting in the wings? Looks to me Starlink has a pretty high chance of reaching 1 million customers by the end of the year, or very close.

1 million subscribers? Guess Elon needs to send the kitty and suit out for dry cleaning soon then...
That's $1-2 billion in revenue. SpaceX had $2 billion in revenue in 2018, so this isn't nothing...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/15/2022 05:51 am
https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1570245539568177153

Quote
Starlink V1.5's pretty impressive early-life reliability (sans solar storm incident) appears to have started to noticeably regress over the last half-dozen or so launches.

twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1570245542181216256

Quote
Based on @planet4589's data, from the first 23 V1.5 launches, 8 of 1164 satellites (0.7%) failed for reasons other than space weather. From the last 10 V1.5 launches, 11 of 389 satellites (2.8%) have failed and reentered or are trending towards that fate - a 4X increase.

https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1570245543829590020

Quote
The overall Starlink V1.5 average, minus the solar storm incident, is still a solid 1.2%. This isn't panic-worthy. But it's definitely interesting to see such clear regression.

twitter.com/john_gardi/status/1570270122920808450

Quote
Calling them Starlink V1.5 is a bit of a misnomer.
The Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters have been iteratively updated and I expect Starlink satellites are going through much the same process.
This could reflect a change to propulsion, the electronics or even (though unlikely) software.

https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1570277707782692864

Quote
Oh yeah, I'm like 90% sure the downturn involves some kind of design or manufacturing change. Short of worsening QA, hard to explain it otherwise!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 09/15/2022 09:41 am
They could be launching satellites with experimental parts. According to my calculations (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52191.msg2407869#msg2407869) they need to launch 4.25 batches to complete shell 4. That means about 40 out of the next 270 satellites (they will launch that many) are non-essential. They may launch less than 54 in the last batch though. In any case they have room for experiments.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 09/16/2022 04:46 am
https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1570245539568177153

Quote
Starlink V1.5's pretty impressive early-life reliability (sans solar storm incident) appears to have started to noticeably regress over the last half-dozen or so launches.

Note there're speculation that this may be caused by space weather.

Looking at NOAA's archived alert timeline at ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/alerts/, there're more geomagnetic alert/warning during September 3 to 9 period than Feb 2 to 5, the latter is when they lost 38 satellites in Group 4-7.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 09/16/2022 04:48 am
And talking about space weather, here's a new paper from China: Unveiling the Space Weather During the Starlink Satellites Destruction Event on 4 February 2022 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022SW003152#.YyOKQ38ApMk.twitter)

Quote from: Abstract
On 4 February 2022, 38 Starlink satellites were destroyed by the geomagnetic storm, which brought significant financial, aerospace and public influences. In this letter, we reveal the space weather process during 3–4 February 2022 geomagnetic disturbances, from the Sun all the way to the satellite orbiting atmosphere. Initiated by an M1.0 class flare and the following coronal mass ejection (CME), a moderate geomagnetic storm was stimulated on 3rd February by the CME arrival at Earth. Subsequently, another moderate storm was triggered on 4th February by the passage of another CME. Model simulations driven by solar wind show that the first geomagnetic storm induced around 20% atmospheric density perturbations at 210 km altitude on 3rd February. The unexpected subsequent storm on 4th February led to a density enhancement of around 20%–30% at around 210 km. The resulting atmospheric drag can be even larger, since the regional density enhancement was over 60% and the satellite orbits were continuously decaying. This event brings forth the urgent requirements of better understanding and accurate prediction of the space weather as well as collaborations between industry and space weather community.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 09/16/2022 09:20 pm
Quote
Note there're speculation that this may be caused by space weather.

Looking at NOAA's archived alert timeline at ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/alerts/, there're more geomagnetic alert/warning during September 3 to 9 period than Feb 2 to 5, the latter is when they lost 38 satellites in Group 4-7.

Unlikely. When they lost 38 satellites they lost telemetry from those satellites after day 1 (no TLE updates on Celestrak). Now they have continuous telemetry for 11 days from 5 out 6 satellites. They also lost 6 G4-12 satellites four months ago. One was recovered on the 28th day but is now screened. G4-20 issues look more like G4-12 issues rather than G4-7.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: toren on 09/19/2022 04:02 am
Can anyone point me to a primer on Starlink orbital mechanics? Looking for things like parameters for the various groups and shells, ground coverage, precession and the like.  Current and future prospect as the groups and shells are filled. Plain language is better, but I have a graduate degree in an applied math field (not this one!) so equations aren't going to scare me off.

Hope this isn't too much of diversion from the thread.  TIA
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: MGoDuPage on 09/21/2022 04:49 pm
Can anyone point me to a primer on Starlink orbital mechanics? Looking for things like parameters for the various groups and shells, ground coverage, precession and the like.  Current and future prospect as the groups and shells are filled. Plain language is better, but I have a graduate degree in an applied math field (not this one!) so equations aren't going to scare me off.

Hope this isn't too much of diversion from the thread.  TIA

Maybe this thread?:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.20 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49936.20)

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: MGoDuPage on 09/21/2022 06:37 pm
Quote
Note there're speculation that this may be caused by space weather.

Looking at NOAA's archived alert timeline at ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/alerts/, there're more geomagnetic alert/warning during September 3 to 9 period than Feb 2 to 5, the latter is when they lost 38 satellites in Group 4-7.

Unlikely. When they lost 38 satellites they lost telemetry from those satellites after day 1 (no TLE updates on Celestrak). Now they have continuous telemetry for 11 days from 5 out 6 satellites. They also lost 6 G4-12 satellites four months ago. One was recovered on the 28th day but is now screened. G4-20 issues look more like G4-12 issues rather than G4-7.

I'm in *NO* way a technical person, but.....

1) We know SpaceX is using Starlink launches as an opportunity to iterate improvements in rocket performance.  During the Group 4-12 launch they tried a new flight profile/burn sequence. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55877.msg2352219#msg2352219)   I'm not sure if it happend specifically during the Group 4-15 launch, but this very website reported near the end of an article about the G4-15 launch (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/05/spacex-starlink-4-15/) that SpaceX generally is tweaking performance of the rocket by, "changing certain timings during flight like igniting the MVac engine a few seconds earlier than on other missions or separating the fairing closer to stage separation to shed dead weight earlier in the flight." 

I have no idea whether any of this is applicable to the Group 4-20 launch, but is it possible that--as the iteration process *ALWAYS* goes--SpaceX was playing w/ the performance envelope & reached a limit that negatively impacted some (but not all) of the birds for whatever reason?  Let's say there really is a new BIG internal push within SpaceX to get as many Starlink birds up & running ASAP even before Starship/Superheavy is ready to go.  If so, then some of this higher than average Starlink failure rates we've been seeing over the last few months might just be a byproduct of SpaceX iterating various launch/deployment profiles while trying to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of Falcon 9 Block 5 rockets. Overall, I'm sure the optimization program is still a net benefit (otherwise SpaceX wouldn't be doing it). But as they say.... while learning to make the perfect omlette, it's inevitable that a few eggs are going to be lost along the way....



Much less likely, but...


2) The Group 4-20 launch was one of the first in a long time that had a rideshare component. Specifically, the Sherpa-LTC2 space tug & it's sole hosted payload was Boeing's Varuna Technology Demonstration Mission. I assume any risk to Starlink satellites/deployment being co-manifested with this would've been identified & mitigated way ahead of time by SpaceX. But....stranger things have happened?



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: bulkmail on 09/22/2022 08:52 am
The currently announced 4 Starlink group 4 launches will get sufficient satellites in orbit to reach the planned number of 1584. But the sequential numbers of the flights (4-1 to 4-37) leave some missing ones: 4-24, 4-28, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33

What's the explanation?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 09/22/2022 10:14 am
to reach the planned number of 1584.

Not exactly the answer you are looking for but the deployment is less orderly than you expect. They are not planning to reach 1584. They are deploying 18 satellites per plane with 2 or more spares (or standby satellites as starlink.sx calls them). Some planes randomly have 3-7 spares. The orbital chart from starlink.sx:
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 09/22/2022 02:20 pm
The currently announced 4 Starlink group 4 launches will get sufficient satellites in orbit to reach the planned number of 1584. But the sequential numbers of the flights (4-1 to 4-37) leave some missing ones: 4-24, 4-28, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33

What's the explanation?
A guess, based on experience with a manufacturer that also has holes in the serial number sequence.

The numbers are nominal, rather than ordinal or cardinal.  Why are there gaps in the NY Giants player numbers?

The numbers are assigned some time before launch.  Numbers are assigned to missions with particular characteristics (perhaps a mod of the satellite, a trajectory, a ride share, a particular lower or upper stage, etc.)  The number gets entered into the system (and people's brains) for planning purposes and the number gets associated with that characteristic.  If they cancel or substantially alter the mission reusing or continuing to use the number could cause confusion, so they leave a hole.  It's not like they will run out of integers.


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/22/2022 02:57 pm
There are also gaps in Starlink serial numbers.

Johathan McDowell posted a list of all starlink serial numbers in orbit recently. While I cannot quickly find the list, his statistics on each launch contain the serial numbers of each satellite on that launch.
https://planet4589.org/space/stats/star/stats.html

Edit: Found it, complete list, with serial number gaps
https://planet4589.org/space/stats/star/starlink.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 09/22/2022 03:40 pm
to reach the planned number of 1584.

Not exactly the answer you are looking for but the deployment is less orderly than you expect. They are not planning to reach 1584. They are deploying 18 satellites per plane with 2 or more spares (or standby satellites as starlink.sx calls them). Some planes randomly have 3-7 spares. The orbital chart from starlink.sx:
Is the "Licensed for 22 but fully operational with 18 to keep rapidly deployable spares up, or will they have all 22 fully operating eventually, with the ability to quickly stretch out the spacing if a sat goes AWOL?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 09/22/2022 04:14 pm
Is the "Licensed for 22 but fully operational with 18 to keep rapidly deployable spares up, or will they have all 22 fully operating eventually, with the ability to quickly stretch out the spacing if a sat goes AWOL?
I don't think they'd even need to spread out to fill holes.  They are operating now with plenty of holes, and there is a lot of overlap between any single hole and a dozen or more nearby satellites, so it's "just a matter of scheduling".  You'd only need to move satellites if several holes were adjacent.

From the beginning I've wondered about on-orbit spares v. just putting up a few more satellites and using them all so you get a little more capacity if there are no failures.  For a large constellation it seems the only reason not to use the spares is to extend their life but that runs counter to the design of Starlink where lifetime may be limited by fuel to counter drag and short useful life is expected.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 09/23/2022 06:50 pm
Is the "Licensed for 22 but fully operational with 18 to keep rapidly deployable spares up, or will they have all 22 fully operating eventually, with the ability to quickly stretch out the spacing if a sat goes AWOL?
I don't think they'd even need to spread out to fill holes.  They are operating now with plenty of holes, and there is a lot of overlap between any single hole and a dozen or more nearby satellites, so it's "just a matter of scheduling".  You'd only need to move satellites if several holes were adjacent.

From the beginning I've wondered about on-orbit spares v. just putting up a few more satellites and using them all so you get a little more capacity if there are no failures.  For a large constellation it seems the only reason not to use the spares is to extend their life but that runs counter to the design of Starlink where lifetime may be limited by fuel to counter drag and short useful life is expected.
Here's a couple FCC questions. There are on orbit benchmarks that SX needs to hit to keep their license. How are spares counted? Is the concept of spares even formally recognized?


If the role of spare doesn't legally exist, does not being turned on keep them from counting against the licensed total allowed for each plane?


This all feeds SX decisions on lighting them up.


Another question. Has there been any evidence for spares being moved around to fill holes? If there's a hole it makes sense to fill it to avoid the possibility of two adjacent holes.



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/24/2022 01:50 pm
So did we just get a new hint that the laser links may be partially active.  The nearest ground station to Iran is well out of coverage range in Western Turkey.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 09/24/2022 02:15 pm
So did we just get a new hint that the laser links may be partially active.  The nearest ground station to Iran is well out of coverage range in Western Turkey.
Had it before this. Antarctica is up and running and that requires laser links.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 09/24/2022 03:44 pm
So did we just get a new hint that the laser links may be partially active.  The nearest ground station to Iran is well out of coverage range in Western Turkey.
Had it before this. Antarctica is up and running and that requires laser links.

I think the one thing we all missed is the nearest ground station is in Western Turkey. For Iran it is well out of range. At least without lasers.

Without doing some hand waving about secret underground volcanic ground stations and lairs. Is this a nod that there are now enough satellites with lasers turned on?

Convert global coverage. Interesting indeed.
Given that they recently announced internet in Antartica, it's very likely.
True, but Antarctica  is served by the high-inclination shell. That shell provides dense coverage in high latitudes and progressively sparser coverage over lower latitudes. Below some latitude the coverage becomes intermittent. At latitudes below 53 degrees, service is provided mostly by the lower-inclination shells, and I think these are mostly still early-generation satellites with no ISL. I have no insight into Starlink's implementation, but If I were designing it the high-inclination satellites would save their energy for use in high latitudes and would not provide user beams at lower latitudes, instead acting as ISL relays for their higher-latitude shell-mates.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 09/24/2022 04:11 pm
So did we just get a new hint that the laser links may be partially active.  The nearest ground station to Iran is well out of coverage range in Western Turkey.
Had it before this. Antarctica is up and running and that requires laser links.

I think the one thing we all missed is the nearest ground station is in Western Turkey. For Iran it is well out of range. At least without lasers.

Without doing some hand waving about secret underground volcanic ground stations and lairs. Is this a nod that there are now enough satellites with lasers turned on?

Convert global coverage. Interesting indeed.
Given that they recently announced internet in Antartica, it's very likely.
True, but Antarctica  is served by the high-inclination shell. That shell provides dense coverage in high latitudes and progressively sparser coverage over lower latitudes. Below some latitude the coverage becomes intermittent. At latitudes below 53 degrees, service is provided mostly by the lower-inclination shells, and I think these are mostly still early-generation satellites with no ISL. I have no insight into Starlink's implementation, but If I were designing it the high-inclination satellites would save their energy for use in high latitudes and would not provide user beams at lower latitudes, instead acting as ISL relays for their higher-latitude shell-mates.
Check the recent Spacex tweet.

"Starlink is now on all seven continents! In such a remote location like Antarctica, this capability is enabled by Starlink's space laser network"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 09/24/2022 04:27 pm
So did we just get a new hint that the laser links may be partially active.  The nearest ground station to Iran is well out of coverage range in Western Turkey.
Had it before this. Antarctica is up and running and that requires laser links.

I think the one thing we all missed is the nearest ground station is in Western Turkey. For Iran it is well out of range. At least without lasers.

Without doing some hand waving about secret underground volcanic ground stations and lairs. Is this a nod that there are now enough satellites with lasers turned on?

Convert global coverage. Interesting indeed.
Given that they recently announced internet in Antartica, it's very likely.
True, but Antarctica  is served by the high-inclination shell. That shell provides dense coverage in high latitudes and progressively sparser coverage over lower latitudes. Below some latitude the coverage becomes intermittent. At latitudes below 53 degrees, service is provided mostly by the lower-inclination shells, and I think these are mostly still early-generation satellites with no ISL. I have no insight into Starlink's implementation, but If I were designing it the high-inclination satellites would save their energy for use in high latitudes and would not provide user beams at lower latitudes, instead acting as ISL relays for their higher-latitude shell-mates.
Check the recent Spacex tweet.

"Starlink is now on all seven continents! In such a remote location like Antarctica, this capability is enabled by Starlink's space laser network"
This is completely consistent with what I posted: ISL is needed for Antarctica and is provided by the high-inclination shell. The high-inclination shell is too sparse to provide continuous coverage below some particular latitude, probably about 53 degrees. Lower-latitude locations are supported by the lower-inclination shells, and most of the satellites in these shells are the older ones that are not equipped with ISL.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/24/2022 06:36 pm
A BTW ISL sats outnumber non-ISL sats currently in orbit. But still awaiting the last 2 months of launches to have have more full operational ISLs than non-ISLs. By end of Nov operational orbit position ISLs will outnumber non ISLs.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/25/2022 07:20 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1574112663864430593

Quote
Starlink now over 1M user terminals manufactured
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 09/25/2022 09:12 pm
Updated my terminal estimation with this new datapoint
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 09/25/2022 11:54 pm
Satellite numbers jumped from 4810 to 5000. When they released v1.5 the numbers jumped from 2763 to 3003. And the satellites likely got heavier since they launched 52 instead of 54.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 09/26/2022 02:06 am
Updated my terminal estimation with this new datapoint

At that rate of increase they should double to 2 million early next year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/26/2022 02:26 am
Looks like the rate is a steady 500K per 3 months. Or an eventual total amount of 2M/yr at this current rate. So total produced come Mar 2023 a likely 2M. Now how many of the older terminals are getting retired and how long before these recent built terminals make it to a new subscriber?

The end result is for 2023 an average number of subscribers for the year at a value of 2.5M with ending number of subscribers EOY 2023 of 3.5M. WOW!!!!

An average of 2.5M subscribers for a year is >2.5B in revenue.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/26/2022 04:14 am
Looks like the rate is a steady 500K per 3 months. Or an eventual total amount of 2M/yr at this current rate. So total produced come Mar 2023 a likely 2M. Now how many of the older terminals are getting retired and how long before these recent built terminals make it to a new subscriber?

The end result is for 2023 an average number of subscribers for the year at a value of 2.5M with ending number of subscribers EOY 2023 of 3.5M. WOW!!!!

An average of 2.5M subscribers for a year is >2.5B in revenue.
Really won't take long until Starlink beats NASA as a revenue stream for SpaceX.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: EspenU on 09/26/2022 04:26 am


An average of 2.5M subscribers for a year is >2.5B in revenue.
Are these revenue estimates updated with the new Starlink prices?
I know several regions had substantial drops in subscription prices. However, I haven't followed it close enough to know if other regions had increased prices to compensate.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/26/2022 04:32 am


An average of 2.5M subscribers for a year is >2.5B in revenue.
Are these revenue estimates updated with the new Starlink prices?
I know several regions had substantial drops in subscription prices. However, I haven't followed it close enough to know if other regions had increased prices to compensate.

On the flip side, the presumably much more lucrative airline, cruise ship and government / military markets aren’t factored in either.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 09/27/2022 05:07 am
Satellite numbers jumped from 4810 to 5000. When they released v1.5 the numbers jumped from 2763 to 3003. And the satellites likely got heavier since they launched 52 instead of 54.

Adding Swarm antennas?

The whole swarm satellite weights only 400 g. Too low to explain the weight increase. They launched 45 50xx and 7 47xx Starlinks. If that's equal to 54 4xxx Starlinks, weight increased by 4.4% (47/45 - 1) or about 13 kg per satellite.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 09/28/2022 03:04 am
https://driveteslacanada.ca/spacex/spacex-builds-1000000th-starlink-dish/

Quote
If you have recently ordered Starlink and are expecting to receive your equipment soon, Ellie tells us you might want to check the packaging carefully.

According to the source, SpaceX celebrated building the 1,000,000th Starlink dish by including a special surprise inside of the box, which we will hopefully hear about once the lucky recipient finds it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/28/2022 02:52 pm
Looks like the rate is a steady 500K per 3 months. Or an eventual total amount of 2M/yr at this current rate. So total produced come Mar 2023 a likely 2M. Now how many of the older terminals are getting retired and how long before these recent built terminals make it to a new subscriber?

The end result is for 2023 an average number of subscribers for the year at a value of 2.5M with ending number of subscribers EOY 2023 of 3.5M. WOW!!!!

An average of 2.5M subscribers for a year is >2.5B in revenue.

While impressive, we all know that Elon doesn't think linearly, he loves exponential ramps.

They maybe constrained by components needed for user terminals or other operational constraints.  However, I am expecting that Elon will push for a very aggressive ramp and that they will exceed the 2.5M by the end of 2023.

I think Starlink will eventually be a global company with a valuation of $500B-$1T, that maybe 5-10 years away.

With the potential revenue and profits there is a huge incentive for SpaceX to ramp F9 flights and get Starship operational.  What an exciting time to be a space fan.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/28/2022 04:24 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1575158667015606272

Quote
SpaceX is now selling a "flat high performance" version of its Starlink satellite antenna, which is currently only available to maritime customers.

A maritime order includes two flat antennas and mounts for $10,000.

https://www.starlink.com/specifications?spec=3
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gongora on 09/28/2022 04:36 pm
If you look for pics of the terminals being installed on Royal Caribbean ships it's these flat ones.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 09/28/2022 04:41 pm
Quote
SpaceX is now selling a "flat high performance" version of its Starlink satellite antenna, which is currently only available to maritime customers.

A maritime order includes two flat antennas and mounts for $10,000.
If this seems strange, its not. Commercial vessels need two antennas because they have lots of antennas up on masts for radar, radio, etc., and all of them want to be at the highest point (radar wins)  This means the Starlink antennas are mounted lower and that as the ship moves and turns, there will often be a mast between your satellite antenna and the satellite you need to use. Therefore, you use two antennas so one of them will be on the correct side of the ship to "see" the satellite. An ideal setup will shift seamlessly between antennas. I don't know how Starlink does it, but there are several possible implementations.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: StarshipTrooper on 09/28/2022 04:43 pm
High Performance terminals are $10,000 purchase and $5,000 per month!

Of all terminals, over 1 million built and since there is a waiting period, soon to be shipped. This is way sooner than anyone expected. Revenue soon will be >1.2 billion a year!

What do you think the breakeven point for Starlink would be?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 09/28/2022 05:47 pm
 Geo ship sat systems can come with controllers that plot blockages using signal dropouts. Combined with two antennas in the right places, since you almost never have a perfect view, both with connections up all the time and predicted sat positions, they could promise some pretty glitch free service.
 I'm guessing those high priced systems include a lot more than a little extra rtv in the seams.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 09/28/2022 06:03 pm
Geo ship sat systems can come with controllers that plot blockages using signal dropouts. Combined with two antennas in the right places, since you almost never have a perfect view, both with connections up all the time, they could promise some pretty glitch free service.
 I'm guessing those high priced systems include a lot more than a little extra rtv in the seams.

Actually, those GEO systems use a map of the ship's superstructure as seen from the antenna to predict blockages as the ship turns, etc. You need this before you decide to switch from one satellite to another, because you don't want to switch to a satellite that you know in advance is already blocked. Among other things, you don't want to spray the ship's superstructure with C-band or Ku-band RF, even at low power. When I worked for iDirect, I implemented the first commercial system that switched among GEO satellites, in 2006. I have to believe that the industry has moved forward from there.

Older systems switched the actual satellite modem between the two antennas at the RF level. I strongly suspect that modern systems use two completely separate systems connected to a LAN and coordinating with each other via a local control protocol.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 09/28/2022 06:45 pm
 I set up many Seatels (Had one of the Intellians SpaceX use to use and sent it back because it couldn't keep a lock if a butterfly sneezed 50 feet away) and am iDirect certified. "Spraying" isn't really an issue because tx is cutoff within milliseconds if you lose lock.

 I can't remember the name of the controller, but it wasn't the iDirect doing the mapping. The one we used could learn blockages. But they weren't smart enough to update them if the ship moved a few hundred miles. Not an issue with leo since sat position has to be dynamically updated all the time anyhow.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/02/2022 04:38 am
https://twitter.com/virtuallynathan/status/1576241884233887746

Quote
In an email to a Brazilian customer, SpaceX have confirmed ISLs are now largely active.  (translated from Portuguese)

Quote
STARLINK
Starlink staff is currently servicing your location using Inter-Satellite Links (also known as space lasers).
Space lasers allow Starlink satellites to directly connect to each other, eliminating the need for a local ground station and allowing Starlink to provide service in some of the most remote locations in the world such as Antarctica.
The Starlink team is the first to deploy space laser technology on this scale, and its location is among the first to receive this service.
As one of the first, we encourage you to share your feedback. In particular, if you are experiencing inconsistent service or periods of poor connectivity, please contact our Support Team. Both the performance and capacity of our space lasers will dramatically improve between now and the end of the year, which will increase your connection instability and allow us to bring even more remote users online.
If for any reason you are not satisfied with your Starlink service, you may return the equipment within 30 days for a full refund. As always, you can unsubscribe at any time from your account page.
Thank you for your support and we look forward to seeing you online!
Starlink team
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 10/02/2022 08:55 am
Quote
STARLINK
Both the performance and capacity of our space lasers will dramatically improve between now and the end of the year, which will increase your connection instability...

Possibly something slightly off with the translation here. :-)

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/02/2022 12:44 pm
I guess the instability is better than nothing.

Sounds like they are doing large scale customer beta testing with the lasers.  That is good news.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: dplot123 on 10/02/2022 11:58 pm
Mike Puchol updated https://starlink.sx to include a Starlink country capacity simulator. He also has a medium post explaining the intricacies of the capacity simulation and how Starlink works.

https://mikepuchol.com/modeling-starlink-capacity-843b2387f501
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Vultur on 10/03/2022 06:36 pm
"Space lasers" just sounds so awesome/ SF-ish.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Star One on 10/03/2022 06:48 pm
If there’s a specific thread for this kind of thing I cannot find it.

https://twitter.com/ari_rex/status/1576797509795532800

Quote
Space X satellites as they pass through Milky Way over canola fields near Harden NSW Australia.
Last year this image won the first place in #aippawards (Australian Institute of Professional Photographers)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 10/04/2022 02:03 pm
I've heard that starlinks are getting brighter again (instead of dimmer).
They no longer have visors, because they might interfere with laser links. As a result, all the newer birds will be brighter.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: groknull on 10/04/2022 08:37 pm
I've heard that starlinks are getting brighter again (instead of dimmer).
They no longer have visors, because they might interfere with laser links. As a result, all the newer birds will be brighter.

Source?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/04/2022 09:35 pm
Yeah, Starlinks actually use a highly reflective dielectric mirror sort of thing to reflect sunlight away from the Earth instead of absorbing it like with the shield thing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 10/05/2022 12:30 am
I've heard that starlinks are getting brighter again (instead of dimmer).
They no longer have visors, because they might interfere with laser links. As a result, all the newer birds will be brighter.

I don't remember visor removal having to do with ISL line of sight blockage, plus the ISL's are located on the edge of the satellite bus with extremely clear line of sight to the left/right/forward/back which are the primary directions of use (not down)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/05/2022 01:05 am
I've heard that starlinks are getting brighter again (instead of dimmer).
They no longer have visors, because they might interfere with laser links. As a result, all the newer birds will be brighter.

I don't remember visor removal having to do with ISL line of sight blockage, plus the ISL's are located on the edge of the satellite bus with extremely clear line of sight to the left/right/forward/back which are the primary directions of use (not down)
I have not seen a diagram of Starlink's proposed ISL scheme, but the architectures I am familiar with also link planes at differing altitudes. You don't have to point up or down much to hit a higher or lower satellite if it is far enough away, though. Also note that satellites in the same orbit are somewhat below your XY plane because the orbit is curved, and you need some additional deflection because you will be tilted. I'm guessing that +-20 degrees deflection in the Z direction will be more than adequate.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 10/05/2022 02:47 am
I've heard that starlinks are getting brighter again (instead of dimmer).
They no longer have visors, because they might interfere with laser links. As a result, all the newer birds will be brighter.

Source?

It was discussed in the Impacts of Large Satellite Constellations on Astronomy (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48302.msg2377167#msg2377167) thread a few months ago, as far as I can see it's an unpublished result from a Russian observatory, I would wait for published result before reaching any conclusions.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 10/05/2022 05:45 am
Another Gen2 filing https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=17429628

Quote
SATELLITE DIMENSIONS
The tables below present information for the current form factors of SpaceX Gen2
satellites: two of which will be launched initially on Falcon 9 rockets and one that will be launched
on Starship. For convenience, these satellites are labeled satellites F9-1, F9-2, and Starship,
respectively. Note that to better reflect a non-maneuverable satellite in a tumbling deorbit a scaling
factor has been applied to the area-to-mass ratios used with NASA’s Debris Assessment Software
(“DAS”). Specifically, a factor of 0.5 has been applied to the two larger satellites and a factor of
0.516 has been applied for the smallest one. Following the tables, SpaceX includes sample logs
from its DAS analyses for each of the current Gen2 form factors.

Quote
Launch cadence to support rapid broadband deployment. SpaceX remains committed to
deploying its Gen2 constellation as quickly as possible to meet the growing needs of consumers
throughout the country for high-speed, low-latency broadband service. In the previous Voluntary
Supplement, SpaceX explained that it plans to launch satellites for its Gen2 constellation beginning
with its three 500-kilometer shells, followed by satellites in the lower-altitude shells.16 Although
its specific launch cadence is being finalized, SpaceX anticipates launching satellites into the Gen2
constellation at a rate of at least once per week during 2023, with a more rapid cadence over time.
While the number of satellites per launch will vary depending on the launch vehicle used and
whether any other payloads are involved, SpaceX expects that launches will have approximately
twenty to sixty satellites on each Falcon 9 launch and approximately fifty to one hundred satellites
initially on each Starship launch, with a variable number of satellites per launch as Starship and
Falcon 9 capabilities develop over time.

There is more in the filing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 10/05/2022 06:02 am
I wonder if F9-1 is just the current v1.5 satellite.

Also interesting that the larger versions have 2 solar arrays

Another interesting thing is that the frequency of the "Emergency beacons for non-U.S. operation" is 137-138 MHz (transmit) and 148-150.05 MHz (receive), this is the same band used by Swarm IoT satellites (137-138 MHz for downlink, 148-149.95 Mhz uplink).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/05/2022 11:23 am
I think F9-1 are the current v1.5's,

It does make me wonder what they will fill shell 2 with.  v1.5's or v2's.

v2 seems to be getting closer. SpaceX is getting close to completing  shells 4 and 3.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2022 01:36 pm

257 square meters at 90% full factor and 20% efficiency of 1360W/m^2 solar at 1AU is 63kW peak per satellite. 30,000 of those satellites is 1.9GW. They’ll be in shade, say, 40% of the time, so that’s over 1Gigawatt of average power consumption. About 8 square kilometers of surface are of solar panels.

This is approximately the scale needed for space-based solar power.

If they can build and launch this constellation for less than $10 billion, that basically means you could build a space based solar power station with comparable cost as new nuclear. (…ground segment cost is a question, of course. And you have much of the energy being used for electric thrusters, not transmission.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 10/05/2022 01:39 pm

257 square meters at 90% full factor and 20% efficiency of 1360W/m^2 solar at 1AU is 63kW peak per satellite. 30,000 of those satellites is 1.9GW. They’ll be in shade, say, 40% of the time, so that’s over 1Gigawatt of average power consumption. About 8 square kilometers of surface are of solar panels.

This is approximately the scale needed for space-based solar power.

Wow.   SpaceX continues to impress with their innovations and the SCALE

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 10/05/2022 01:49 pm
I've heard that starlinks are getting brighter again (instead of dimmer).
They no longer have visors, because they might interfere with laser links. As a result, all the newer birds will be brighter.

Source?
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/newest-starlink-satellites-have-gotten-brighter-again/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2022 01:53 pm
I've heard that starlinks are getting brighter again (instead of dimmer).
They no longer have visors, because they might interfere with laser links. As a result, all the newer birds will be brighter.

Source?
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/newest-starlink-satellites-have-gotten-brighter-again/
0.6 magnitude brighter than visorsats, but still dimmer than original Starlinks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Redclaws on 10/05/2022 01:53 pm

257 square meters at 90% full factor and 20% efficiency of 1360W/m^2 solar at 1AU is 63kW peak per satellite. 30,000 of those satellites is 1.9GW. They’ll be in shade, say, 40% of the time, so that’s over 1Gigawatt of average power consumption. About 8 square kilometers of surface are of solar panels.

This is approximately the scale needed for space-based solar power.

If they can build and launch this constellation for less than $10 billion, that basically means you could build a space based solar power station with comparable cost as new nuclear. (…ground segment cost is a question, of course. And you have much of the energy being used for electric thrusters, not transmission.)

This ignores loss and capacity issues (when can they see the ground station) entirely, which is going to cut this by a *lot*.  Like, a lot a lot.  I don’t think it makes the equations close.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 10/05/2022 03:34 pm
I've heard that starlinks are getting brighter again (instead of dimmer).
They no longer have visors, because they might interfere with laser links. As a result, all the newer birds will be brighter.

Source?
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/newest-starlink-satellites-have-gotten-brighter-again/
0.6 magnitude brighter than visorsats, but still dimmer than original Starlinks.
So starlinks are getting brighter again. They will also start getting even brighter with the larger sized ones.

This "dimmer than original" covers up the elephant in the room that is always ignored. They are only at the smaller magnitude when they reach final orbit. However, there are always hundreds of satellites on their way up to orbit (which takes several months. Starship is gonna change this to possibly thousands). In a couple years, there will also start to be many hundreds (or thousands) constantly on their way DOWN from orbit to be removed as they hit their 5yr lifespan or whatever and are replaced. So while some starlink satellites are at their minimum magnitude, there will always be a large number of satellites that are much brighter. The constellation will never be finished, there will always be many hundreds on their way up or down.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/05/2022 03:40 pm
FOR THIS THREAD the key discusion of the size of the solar arrays is the relative increase in throughput that the F9-2 and the Starship versions would have over that of a V1.5 sat. The F9-2 will most likely have a 4X throughput increase to a possible 5X increase. The Starship one a possible 8X to 12X throughput increase.

So if V1.5 can support a worldwide total subscribers of up to 4-8M with 4400 sats. The Starship V2 would support worldwide subscribers totals of 32-64M.

Once the Starship ones start launching in volume. SpaceX market cap valuation will ikely jump to significantly greater than even 300B. Terminal build rates of 2M/yr will mean that it would take 16yrs to reach the 32M level. So also expect that once Starship launches start in earnest also expect significant build rate increases for terminals doubling or more the build rates.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 10/05/2022 03:45 pm
I've heard that starlinks are getting brighter again (instead of dimmer).
They no longer have visors, because they might interfere with laser links. As a result, all the newer birds will be brighter.

Source?
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/newest-starlink-satellites-have-gotten-brighter-again/
0.6 magnitude brighter than visorsats, but still dimmer than original Starlinks.
So starlinks are getting brighter again. They will also start getting even brighter with the larger sized ones.

This "dimmer than original" covers up the elephant in the room that is always ignored. They are only at the smaller magnitude when they reach final orbit. However, there are always hundreds of satellites on their way up to orbit (which takes several months. Starship is gonna change this to possibly thousands). In a couple years, there will also start to be many hundreds (or thousands) constantly on their way DOWN from orbit to be removed as they hit their 5yr lifespan or whatever and are replaced. So while some starlink satellites are at their minimum magnitude, there will always be a large number of satellites that are much brighter. The constellation will never be finished, there will always be many hundreds on their way up or down.

Gen2 will be using an improved dielectric mirror film.  It appears that v1.5 satellites on the Gen1 constellation have so far used the old dielectric mirror film.

https://api.starlink.com/public-files/BrightnessMitigationBestPracticesSatelliteOperators.pdf

It's a work in progress.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: theinternetftw on 10/05/2022 08:14 pm
Another Gen2 filing https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=17429628

Quote
SATELLITE DIMENSIONS
The tables below present information for the current form factors of SpaceX Gen2
satellites: two of which will be launched initially on Falcon 9 rockets and one that will be launched
on Starship. For convenience, these satellites are labeled satellites F9-1, F9-2, and Starship,
respectively.


A quick visual aid for the scale of the sat variants.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 10/05/2022 08:34 pm
I've heard that starlinks are getting brighter again (instead of dimmer).
They no longer have visors, because they might interfere with laser links. As a result, all the newer birds will be brighter.

Source?
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/newest-starlink-satellites-have-gotten-brighter-again/
0.6 magnitude brighter than visorsats, but still dimmer than original Starlinks.
So starlinks are getting brighter again. They will also start getting even brighter with the larger sized ones.

This "dimmer than original" covers up the elephant in the room that is always ignored. They are only at the smaller magnitude when they reach final orbit. However, there are always hundreds of satellites on their way up to orbit (which takes several months. Starship is gonna change this to possibly thousands). In a couple years, there will also start to be many hundreds (or thousands) constantly on their way DOWN from orbit to be removed as they hit their 5yr lifespan or whatever and are replaced. So while some starlink satellites are at their minimum magnitude, there will always be a large number of satellites that are much brighter. The constellation will never be finished, there will always be many hundreds on their way up or down.

Good points.   Agreed, starlink sats are visible in the night sky when they are illuminated

However, the world has gained an important new global utility that is significantly changing everyday communication in remote locations.   High speed internet available on any continent, at sea, and in the air.   Remote (anywhere!) emergency messaging from regular phones (coming soon).

Significantly, this business is enabling cheaper access to space for everyone, including those that do astronomy from orbit.   It's worth pointing out that a Hubble servicing mission is possible due to this.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/05/2022 09:48 pm
Expect the eventual fallout from all of SpaceX's experimentation with reflectivity and effects to terrestrial observation assets to result in an eventual US and then later an International set of standards for all new sats in Earth orbit. This will be a big gain for the terrestrial astronomical instruments usage. But for even more advanced observations will likely move out into space beyond most of the objects that are in the way such as placed out at Lagrange  Earth-Sun 2 past the Moon's orbit and is permanently facing away from the sun. This is beyond the Lagrange Earth-Moon 2 point.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 10/06/2022 12:36 am
A quick visual aid for the scale of the sat variants.

Interesting that the brightness mitigation document (https://api.starlink.com/public-files/BrightnessMitigationBestPracticesSatelliteOperators.pdf) they posted at the end of July kind of suggests that gen2 satellites will have L shape similar to gen1 satellites. I can imagine how two solar arrays you pictured might work but I would expect the description of "terminator tracking" and the illustration to be more specific about how each array rotates.

Quote

To scatter sunlight hitting the front side of the solar arrays, the second-generation satellites will
point the solar arrays away from the Sun when crossing the terminator (the line on Earth's
surface separating night and day) in a maneuver called "terminator tracking." This maneuver
will point the knife edge of the solar array at the earth limb, which minimizes brightness when
viewed from the ground, as shown in the image below.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 10/06/2022 01:45 am
So starlinks are getting brighter again. They will also start getting even brighter with the larger sized ones.

This "dimmer than original" covers up the elephant in the room that is always ignored. They are only at the smaller magnitude when they reach final orbit. However, there are always hundreds of satellites on their way up to orbit (which takes several months. Starship is gonna change this to possibly thousands). In a couple years, there will also start to be many hundreds (or thousands) constantly on their way DOWN from orbit to be removed as they hit their 5yr lifespan or whatever and are replaced. So while some starlink satellites are at their minimum magnitude, there will always be a large number of satellites that are much brighter. The constellation will never be finished, there will always be many hundreds on their way up or down.

No and No.

They won't get even brighter with the larger sized ones since the larger sized ones will use better mirror material, it's all laid out in their brightness mitigation document (https://api.starlink.com/public-files/BrightnessMitigationBestPracticesSatelliteOperators.pdf). I would also expect later builds of Gen1 to reduce brightness again due to the use of this new material.

And satellites in transit is not "elephant in the room", SpaceX talks about them in every brightness related documents, there's no effort to try to ignore them. Also their impact should be minimal, i.e. not an "elephant" since:
1. SpaceX expects to use Starship to inject Gen2 satellites directly to their plane, this avoids the drifting to nearby orbital plane and speed up orbital raising from a few months to a few weeks.
2. Since Gen2 is 30,000 satellites, this means replacing 6,000 satellites every years assuming 5 year life span. Assuming orbital raising/deorbit takes 4 weeks, this means at any time there're only 461 x 2 = 922 satellites in transit, a very small number comparing to the entire constellation and inconsequential to astronomy (multiple astronomers have said the initial constellation does not have big impact to astronomy, 900 satellites is much smaller the Gen1)
3. The satellites in transit would be grouped together in a few satellite trains (probably less than 10), this means they're easier to avoid for astronomers
4. When the satellites are in lower orbit, they appear more briefly during twilight, thus further reduce their impact
5. In addition, SpaceX is also refining the attitude control and solar array pointing during these two phases to reduce brightness, they can do this because when raising orbit or deborit, satellite doesn't need to provide service thus doesn't need to keep a fixed orientation wrt ground, and can live with less power.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/06/2022 01:31 pm
With the micro Gen 2 Falcon 9 compatible satellites just around the corner, will they even continue building v1.5 satellites and take advantage of the new materials? One has to wonder if they have built all the v1.5's they are going to build and it's just a matter of launching the backlog.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: mn on 10/06/2022 04:16 pm
....
5. In addition, SpaceX is also refining the attitude control and solar array pointing during these two phases to reduce brightness, they can do this because when raising orbit or deborit, satellite doesn't need to provide service thus doesn't need to keep a fixed orientation wrt ground, and can live with less power.

Curious about the last part.

At first glance it makes sense that the power requirement for orbit raising is less than for transmitting data, but did anyone do any math on that, or is it just an assumption?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/06/2022 05:24 pm
twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1578055594573004800

Quote
Starlink view of 2nd stage deorbit burn

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1578056421647831040

Quote
Pretty sure this is the first time we’ve ever seen imagery taken by a Starlink satellite

twitter.com/joroulette/status/1578062876627144704

Quote
SpaceX had a NOAA license in 2015 for a low-res panchromatic video camera on MicroSat 1A and 1B - two early prototype satellites that ended up never flying to space.

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1578063054327189510

Quote
Per the license, they were installed to capture pics and vids of Earth and the satellites themselves, and "potentially be used for general educational purposes, such as through the release of inspiring public Earth images"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/06/2022 05:54 pm
Can't help but think about a Luna 3 quote some 43 years ago, so that one had a camera...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Bob Shaw on 10/06/2022 06:07 pm
twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1578055594573004800

Quote
Starlink view of 2nd stage deorbit burn


Can anyone interpret this image please?

I can't see the burn mentioned by Musk.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 10/06/2022 06:08 pm
Expect the eventual fallout from all of SpaceX's experimentation with reflectivity and effects to terrestrial observation assets to result in an eventual US and then later an International set of standards for all new sats in Earth orbit. This will be a big gain for the terrestrial astronomical instruments usage. But for even more advanced observations will likely move out into space beyond most of the objects that are in the way such as placed out at Lagrange  Earth-Sun 2 past the Moon's orbit and is permanently facing away from the sun. This is beyond the Lagrange Earth-Moon 2 point.
Most observations can't and won't move out into space. The cost of a space based observatory is HUGE compared to an equivalent ground based one. And just for the record, launch cost has no impact on this. Free launch won't change this.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: groknull on 10/06/2022 07:00 pm
Expect the eventual fallout from all of SpaceX's experimentation with reflectivity and effects to terrestrial observation assets to result in an eventual US and then later an International set of standards for all new sats in Earth orbit. This will be a big gain for the terrestrial astronomical instruments usage. But for even more advanced observations will likely move out into space beyond most of the objects that are in the way such as placed out at Lagrange  Earth-Sun 2 past the Moon's orbit and is permanently facing away from the sun. This is beyond the Lagrange Earth-Moon 2 point.
Most observations can't and won't move out into space. The cost of a space based observatory is HUGE compared to an equivalent ground based one. And just for the record, launch cost has no impact on this. Free launch won't change this.

My bold.

Do you have links to actual numbers I can do research on?  Published reports, etc.  Also interested in $/minute of actual observation time for different types and locations of terrestrial observatories.  Thx.

Since this is not really Starlink specific, a PM is probably more appropriate.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/06/2022 07:09 pm
Follow-up on Starlink cameras:

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1578095938530328576

Quote
The type of cameras aboard Starlink satellites are primarily for mission assurance purposes - like to monitor separation events and spacecraft health - and therefore don't require a NOAA license, per an agency spokesman pointing to 15 CFR § 960.2 (b).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/06/2022 07:58 pm
Video:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1578111446696828928
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 10/06/2022 08:30 pm
Expect the eventual fallout from all of SpaceX's experimentation with reflectivity and effects to terrestrial observation assets to result in an eventual US and then later an International set of standards for all new sats in Earth orbit. This will be a big gain for the terrestrial astronomical instruments usage. But for even more advanced observations will likely move out into space beyond most of the objects that are in the way such as placed out at Lagrange  Earth-Sun 2 past the Moon's orbit and is permanently facing away from the sun. This is beyond the Lagrange Earth-Moon 2 point.
Most observations can't and won't move out into space. The cost of a space based observatory is HUGE compared to an equivalent ground based one. And just for the record, launch cost has no impact on this. Free launch won't change this.

My bold.

Do you have links to actual numbers I can do research on?  Published reports, etc.  Also interested in $/minute of actual observation time for different types and locations of terrestrial observatories.  Thx.

Since this is not really Starlink specific, a PM is probably more appropriate.


Look up the price of literally ANY space telescope. Also, the price is as much time as it is money.  Look into the years and years of time it takes to build and design one. This is a silly fantasy that free launch is the majority of the solution.

However, to save you the 3 seconds of google time, the ELT (biggest telescope EVER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_Large_Telescope) has a price tag of 1.5 billion euros. We literally do not have the technology to build this in space, but if we tried, after the tech dev and decades of work, it would easily be 50billion plus. How does the difference of $30million on the launch price change anything? (Again ignoring the decades of time lost by trying to build a space based one).

 Even if there was free launch today for a new telescope, it would easily be a decade to fund, design, build, and test something to take advantage of it. 

This is a "starlink" problem, and it HAS already been one problem for years. Will there eventually be other mega constellations? Probably. Does that change the fact that starlink is already causing these problems? Nope.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/06/2022 08:41 pm

Can anyone interpret this image please?

I can't see the burn mentioned by Musk.


You can see it a little better in the video Elon Musk posted. What you see is the stack of Starlinks separating and to the right you see a sudden flare that one would assume is the second stage suddenly moving to the right.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: groknull on 10/06/2022 08:47 pm
Expect the eventual fallout from all of SpaceX's experimentation with reflectivity and effects to terrestrial observation assets to result in an eventual US and then later an International set of standards for all new sats in Earth orbit. This will be a big gain for the terrestrial astronomical instruments usage. But for even more advanced observations will likely move out into space beyond most of the objects that are in the way such as placed out at Lagrange  Earth-Sun 2 past the Moon's orbit and is permanently facing away from the sun. This is beyond the Lagrange Earth-Moon 2 point.
Most observations can't and won't move out into space. The cost of a space based observatory is HUGE compared to an equivalent ground based one. And just for the record, launch cost has no impact on this. Free launch won't change this.

My bold.

Do you have links to actual numbers I can do research on?  Published reports, etc.  Also interested in $/minute of actual observation time for different types and locations of terrestrial observatories.  Thx.

Since this is not really Starlink specific, a PM is probably more appropriate.


Look up the price of literally ANY space telescope. Also, the price is as much time as it is money.  Look into the years and years of time it takes to build and design one. This is a silly fantasy that free launch matters is the majority of the solution.

However, to save you the 3 seconds of google time, the ELT (biggest telescope EVER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_Large_Telescope) has a price tag of 1.5 billion euros. We literally do not have the technology to build this in space, but if we tried, after the tech dev and decades of work, it would easily be 50billion plus. How does the difference of $30million on the launch price change anything?

 Even if there was free launch today, it would easily be a decade to fund, design, build, and test something to take advantage of it.

I was actually asking about the development, construction and operation costs of terrestrial observatories as a baseline.  No reply necessary.  I'll find that info myself.

Now back to discussions directly related to Starlink...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 10/07/2022 03:21 am
....
5. In addition, SpaceX is also refining the attitude control and solar array pointing during these two phases to reduce brightness, they can do this because when raising orbit or deborit, satellite doesn't need to provide service thus doesn't need to keep a fixed orientation wrt ground, and can live with less power.

Curious about the last part.

At first glance it makes sense that the power requirement for orbit raising is less than for transmitting data, but did anyone do any math on that, or is it just an assumption?

Just a wrong assumption.

Quote
During orbit raise from the insertion orbit to the operational orbit, the
satellites need to maximize power generation and minimize drag at low altitudes and
aren't able to perform solar array off-pointing.

Just like during orbit raise, satellites will be brighter at the end of their life while
lowering their orbits until they burn up on reentry.

From the brightness mitigation document SpaceX published (https://api.starlink.com/public-files/BrightnessMitigationBestPracticesSatelliteOperators.pdf).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/07/2022 03:30 am
This is a problem solvable with more mass. Chemical or even cold gas thrusters would allow high thrust orbit insertion and deorbit. Expensive with F9. Eventually cheap when Starship is fully and rapidly reusable.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/07/2022 11:54 am

Can anyone interpret this image please?

I can't see the burn mentioned by Musk.


You can see it a little better in the video Elon Musk posted. What you see is the stack of Starlinks separating and to the right you see a sudden flare that one would assume is the second stage suddenly moving to the right.

What sort of acceleration are we seeing here? Looks pretty... sporty.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 10/07/2022 12:14 pm
Didn't notice that until you pointed it out - Very very cool. It's like the 2nd stage saying "I'm outa here". Moves away at a good click.


Can anyone interpret this image please?

I can't see the burn mentioned by Musk.


You can see it a little better in the video Elon Musk posted. What you see is the stack of Starlinks separating and to the right you see a sudden flare that one would assume is the second stage suddenly moving to the right.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/07/2022 02:41 pm
We don't know the frame rate of the camera, so we can not really tell how fast it is going.

That said, it's an empty upper stage, it should really move. WAG ~1 second burn?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/07/2022 02:44 pm
btw. Do not have exact numbers, but isn't the Merlin Vac ~200,000 lbf and an empty upper stage < 10,000 lbs?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/07/2022 04:36 pm
Expect the eventual fallout from all of SpaceX's experimentation with reflectivity and effects to terrestrial observation assets to result in an eventual US and then later an International set of standards for all new sats in Earth orbit. This will be a big gain for the terrestrial astronomical instruments usage. But for even more advanced observations will likely move out into space beyond most of the objects that are in the way such as placed out at Lagrange  Earth-Sun 2 past the Moon's orbit and is permanently facing away from the sun. This is beyond the Lagrange Earth-Moon 2 point.
Most observations can't and won't move out into space. The cost of a space based observatory is HUGE compared to an equivalent ground based one. And just for the record, launch cost has no impact on this. Free launch won't change this.
The cost of any state of the art ground based observatory is huge, even if hauling it up the mountainside is a freebie.


It's hard to do an apples to apples comparison. Ground based can have a greater aperture. Space based has no atmosphere and does away with the artificial sodium star and high speed seeing corrections. The list goes on, not always to the advantage of space based.


It would be interesting to work up a comparison based on resolution, looking at operating and life cycle costs.


Personally, as a lifelong amateur astronomer I really dislike light pollution but I'm also aware that we ain't gonna stop it. So I suck it up, laud SX pioneering attempts to mitigate and make lemonade. Got some cool pics of the ISS.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/07/2022 05:19 pm
What sort of acceleration are we seeing here? Looks pretty... sporty.
According to Wikipedia, the Merlin vacuum can throttle down to 360 kN.  The empty second stage is thought to mass about 4.5 tonnes.  So a minimum of 8Gs. (Maybe a little less due to mass of residuals, which should be minimal for a Starlink mission.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: plank on 10/07/2022 08:16 pm
What sort of acceleration are we seeing here? Looks pretty... sporty.
According to Wikipedia, the Merlin vacuum can throttle down to 360 kN.  The empty second stage is thought to mass about 4.5 tonnes.  So a minimum of 8Gs. (Maybe a little less due to mass of residuals, which should be minimal for a Starlink mission.)

I'm pretty sure its not accelerating, as its a de orbit burn.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 10/08/2022 02:46 am
The Starlink service map at https://www.starlink.com/map contains some holes.

One in New Mexico is at the location of the Very Large Array radio telescope.
One on the West Virginia/Virginia border covers the National Radio Quiet Zone.

Can anyone identify any others?
Some are near Denver, Santa Fe, Madrid, two in Germany and one in Western Austneralia.

There are also a few single hexagon holes in the western US and Canada.
There are some holes of a different color in bays and lakes, but these seem to be simply because the hex is entirely wet,





Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 10/08/2022 05:22 am
The Starlink service map at https://www.starlink.com/map contains some holes.

One in New Mexico is at the location of the Very Large Array radio telescope.
One on the West Virginia/Virginia border covers the National Radio Quiet Zone.

Can anyone identify any others?
Some are near Denver, Santa Fe, Madrid, two in Germany and one in Western Austneralia.

There are also a few single hexagon holes in the western US and Canada.
There are some holes of a different color in bays and lakes, but these seem to be simply because the hex is entirely wet,
Map is not accurate - I had service in Grenada and Martinique months before the map showed there was availability. So I wouldn’t put total faith in he map as an indicator of service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: tbellman on 10/08/2022 09:08 am
The Starlink service map at https://www.starlink.com/map contains some holes.

One in New Mexico is at the location of the Very Large Array radio telescope.
One on the West Virginia/Virginia border covers the National Radio Quiet Zone.

Can anyone identify any others?
Some are near Denver, Santa Fe, Madrid, two in Germany and one in Western Austneralia.

There are also a few single hexagon holes in the western US and Canada.
There are some holes of a different color in bays and lakes, but these seem to be simply because the hex is entirely wet,

The one in Western Australia seems to match with Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_Radio-astronomy_Observatory), where one of the Square Kilometer Arrays will be located, and they already have an SKA pathfinder array, and the Murchison Widefield Array.

The one outside Madrid seems to match the Yebes Observatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yebes_Observatory).

The western hole in Germany (close to Bonn) matches Effelsberg 100-m Radio Telescope (http://Effelsberg 100-m Radio Telescope).  The eastern one, however, I can't match against any in the Wikipedia list of radio telescopes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_telescopes).

There's a hole in Sweden over Onsala Space Observatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onsala_Space_Observatory) south of Gothenburg as well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/08/2022 01:29 pm
Well the hole over central mass seems to correspond with the Haystack Observatory in Weston MA. I believe there use to also be a radio observatory in Harvard MA which is also under the same hole.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/08/2022 04:04 pm
The Starlink service map at https://www.starlink.com/map contains some holes.

One in New Mexico is at the location of the Very Large Array radio telescope.  One on the West Virginia/Virginia border covers the National Radio Quiet Zone.

Can anyone identify any others?
Some are near Denver, Santa Fe, Madrid, two in Germany and one in Western Austneralia.
The western hole in Germany (close to Bonn) matches Effelsberg 100-m Radio Telescope (http://Effelsberg 100-m Radio Telescope).  The eastern one, however, I can't match against any in the Wikipedia list of radio telescopes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_telescopes).
The eastern hole in Germany is likely for the Wetzell Observatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_Observatory_Wettzell), which does lots of VLBI and geodesy work (requiring observing quasars with radio telescopes).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Jevans on 10/08/2022 04:56 pm
There appears to be a hole south if Manchester, UK; I assume for Jodrell Bank. Not sure what the hole over part of London is for though.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 10/08/2022 05:30 pm
There appears to be a hole south if Manchester, UK; I assume for Jodrell Bank. Not sure what the hole over part of London is for though.

Compare the color of those to the hole near Bonn and the key.  I believe these are waitlist rather than no-service (yet).   If I am correct service is provided but over-subscribed so no new customers at this time.  This makes sense near London, not sure why they would sell out in Wilmslow, but somewhere has to be first.

I do not expect the map to be exact, but I'd expect most of the feature to have rational explanations.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 10/10/2022 04:52 am
https://twitter.com/mikepuchol/status/1578524400055648256

Quote
After reading & digesting @ChristopherJM's tweets with @MehulAtLarge and @felschwartz regarding outages of @SpaceX #Starlink service in Ukraine, here is a short thread which I hope will help understand the issue.



Nothing I will reveal is secret or classified, and can be developed by using publicly available information. So, it can only frustate Russia - Поделитесь своим кулаком в небе, sorry Vlad! Let's start with the first image I've posted.



It shows a capacity simulation over Ukraine, but the point is not to analyze the capacity that Starlink can provide - but rather, where the satellites are. If you look at the satellites on the West, to reach the battle front, they must use a high steering angle.



As I explained in my article https://mikepuchol.com/modeling-starlink-capacity-843b2387f501, the footprint of the spot beams gets elongated as they are steered further from the sub-satellite point (nadir). Let's setup a hypothetical theater, knowing Starlink uses a hexagonal cell system to assign satellite capacity.



In this scenario, blue cells are #Ukraine held territory, salmon cells are held by Russia, and cells 1, 2 and 3 are a penetration into occupied areas, just performed by Ukrainian forces. A satellite directly overhead could serve cell A without worry about jamming from Russia.



By using directional beams, Starlink effectively concentrates its "listening" towards the target cell, and goes "deaf" to anything coming from other cells. Of course, there are nuances to this. What if the commander demands Starlink capacity on cell 3, where the battle rages?



This is what it would look like, if the satellite was not overhead. Due to beam spread, cell A could still be served without the satellite being jammed, but the beam on cell 3 can get jammed from cells now red, as it is also listening to them, and there is nothing it can do.



We have so far used what is known as the "3dB contour", which I won't go into as it's a subject in itself. I can simplify the concept as "the area inside which a user terminal can operate efficiently at design power levels".



A second important concept (again, simplified) is that every 3dB change represents a reduction of power by half, or an increase by two. All antennas have decreasing set of contours, based on the RF signal strength they can "hear", or what they can transmit. Here is an example:



Back to our theater, if we plot (again, very simplified) 3dB, 6dB (half power), 9dB (half power -again-), and 12dB (half power -yet again-), we can see that even if we pointed the "normal" 3dB footprint out of danger, the lower gain footprints would enter Russian ground.



Here comes the punch line: in order to jam this beam, a Russian jammer in a cell inside the 6dB footprint, only needs to -double- the power, to cause the same jamming effect as if it were inside the 3dB footprint. We can see how many cells are candidates for jamming.



The jammer needs to increase the output power and/or antenna gain, to achieve the same effect. You may now ask: why not just use satellites overhead? A satellite directly over the target cell has a slant range of ~550km, whereas at high steering angle, it can reach ~1100km.



This is important is because the RF signal received decreases proportionally to the distance squared. The free space loss at 1100km is about 6dB greater than at 550km. Our jammer only needs to use 25% of the power to achieve the same jamming effect if the satellite is overhead.



I hope this thread was useful, and I'd welcome corrections, additions, and suggestions. As @elonmusk said, coordination with front-line forces to task resources dynamically is critical to avoid jamming operations.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/14/2022 06:52 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1580809382958227458

Quote
Also, Starlink is still losing money! It is insanely difficult for a LEO communications constellation to avoid bankruptcy – that was the fate of every company that tried this before.

When asked what the goal of Starlink was at a space conference, I said “not go bankrupt”.

twitter.com/narutium/status/1580811960182247426

Quote
Starship needs to fly first before Starlink constellation becomes profitable?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1580812701869101057

Quote
Falcon can probably get Starlink past breakeven, but Starship is needed to fund Mars
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: dplot123 on 10/14/2022 06:55 am
Tim Farrar's Starlink tweets mentioned multiple sources say Shotwell will be leaving in the near future and that Starlink has a $1bil/yr revenue end of year goal. He's not the most sensible person on SpaceX, but it's interesting information. He has legitimate connections. I wonder how a departure like this would affect Starlink and if SpaceX will further oversubscribe areas with best effort service to meet an end of year goal.
https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1580714703923257345
Quote
Elon has set the Starlink team a target of $1B in revenues for this year (which they are already getting close to). It seems like anything goes when it comes to meeting those numbers…
https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1580718854480633858
Quote
And what will happen if/when Gwynne leaves, which multiple people have told me is expected in the very near future? She’s supposed to be the adult in the room…
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 10/14/2022 01:49 pm
Putting Ukraine aside, this shows the core issue with starlink - its destroying the night sky but it won't ever be about brining internet to all the poor and underserved. Its a business and will bring internet to those who can afford.

So everyone loses the night sky (astronomy across the world), but only those who can afford benefit.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: EspenU on 10/14/2022 02:27 pm
Putting Ukraine aside, this shows the core issue with starlink - its destroying the night sky but it won't ever be about brining internet to all the poor and underserved. Its a business and will bring internet to those who can afford.

So everyone loses the night sky (astronomy across the world), but only those who can afford benefit.
Who has said that it isn't a business? The whole point of it is to fund the goal of reaching Mars, and that has never been a secret.
They did however recently lower prices in many areas so that it will in fact be more affordable for places where the population has a lower income. So, it should be within reach for poorer regions than the original price indicated.
With the available speeds, poor communities could also pool together to share a subscription.
Isn't that a win win?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 10/14/2022 02:28 pm
Putting Ukraine aside, this shows the core issue with starlink - its destroying the night sky but it won't ever be about brining internet to all the poor and underserved. Its a business and will bring internet to those who can afford.

So everyone loses the night sky (astronomy across the world), but only those who can afford benefit.

That's strawman and hyperbole, and you know it:

1. Not everyone loses the night sky, Starlink is damn near invisible already and will be completely invisible to the naked eye after it reaches magnitude 7, this removes nearly all the people on Earth from being affected by it

2. So it's mainly astronomers are affected by it, that's about 10,000 professionals in the world, way less than the number of people helped by Starlink.

3. Even for astronomers, the sky is not "lost" or "destroyed", the worst case loss scenario for Vera Rubin is about 1 in 3, and SpaceX is working hard to avoid this scenario. For other observatories, the loss is a few percent or less than 1%, neglectable.

4. This phenomena of some benefit from business development and others lost something is not at all unique to Starlink, it is present in *every* industrial development, because no industry is completely free of environmental impact. Even solar farms and wind farms triggers complains from locals about them being an eyesore or generating noises.

5. Nobody is preventing you from buying Starlink terminal and service and donate them to all the poor and underserved, this is true for everything donated to the poor and undeserved. Farmers don't give up their harvest for free to feed the poor, refugee organizations buys food and donate them to the poor.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ulm_atms on 10/14/2022 02:45 pm
Putting Ukraine aside, this shows the core issue with starlink - its destroying the night sky but it won't ever be about brining internet to all the poor and underserved. Its a business and will bring internet to those who can afford.

So everyone loses the night sky (astronomy across the world), but only those who can afford benefit.
Hum....I guess i'm not everyone then.  I do astrophotography as a hobby and I have ZERO issues with Starlink sats getting in the way.  I just do the same thing I have always done but remove the frames with sats in them.  If it is quite a few...I may take an additional 30 minutes of shots to make up for it....but I don't have to do that most times.  Really depends on how wide a shot I take really.

And yes Starlink is a business.  They have to make money or they stop being around.  They got A LOT of R&D and operation costs to pay for to keep them from going belly up during build out.  Of course they are going to charge as much as they can at first to not go under...what did everyone expect?  The "cheaper" stuff always comes much later in an expensive new system...always.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 10/14/2022 03:29 pm
Tim Farrar's Starlink tweets mentioned multiple sources say Shotwell will be leaving in the near future and that Starlink has a $1bil/yr revenue end of year goal. He's not the most sensible person on SpaceX, but it's interesting information. He has legitimate connections. I wonder how a departure like this would affect Starlink and if SpaceX will further oversubscribe areas with best effort service to meet an end of year goal.

Tim Farrar is full of BS as usual:

1. Just because SpaceX gets some revenue from Ukraine does not mean Elon's claim of making losses is completely made up, this is something a child would understand: Loss or Profit = Revenue - Expenses, if expenses exceed revenue, there will be a loss regardless of how much revenue they got.

2. SpaceX is terse in their recent FCC filings because FCC has been dragging its feet with regard to Gen2 approval, even though SpaceX has cleared all the objections and have provided a wealth of information no other providers provided. I don't know if they can sue FCC for not approving Gen2, but I wouldn't be surprised if they start circumventing FCC if the latter keep delaying Gen2.

3. Starlink is not interoperable with other providers is not a indiscretion, there is no law or regulation says they must be interoperable, saying DoD has a problem with this is like saying NASA having a problem with Dragon not being able to launch on Atlas V, it's complete BS. If DoD wants Starlink to be interoperable with other providers, they need to pay for it, either directly or by buying a lot of services, it's as simple as that.

As for what happens if Gwynne leaves: Someone else will assume her position and SpaceX will continue. She's not young anymore, it's not out of question that she might want to enjoy retirement, it would be sad to see her go, but it's not a showstopper. Tesla doesn't have someone like Gwynne, yet it is executing just as well as SpaceX, if not better (it's facing much stronger competition and has factories/contractors/customers all over the world). Right now SpaceX's competition is in disarray, if there is going to be leadership transition, now is not a bad time to do it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/14/2022 04:05 pm
3. Starlink is not interoperable with other providers is not a indiscretion, there is no law or regulation says they must be interoperable, saying DoD has a problem with this is like saying NASA having a problem with Dragon not being able to launch on Atlas V, it's complete BS. If DoD wants Starlink to be interoperable with other providers, they need to pay for it, either directly or by buying a lot of services, it's as simple as that.
This is like Tesla charger ports or Apple charger ports. Starlink was already being designed and deployed before the rest of the industry was doing anything about compatibility, so they implemented a solution. Later, some folks began bemoaning the fact that Starlink (Tesla, Apple) were not using the industry standard. The Apple and Tesla implementations are far superior to the kludges that the standards bodies came up with much later. In the case of Apple, USB-C is finally an acceptable standard, but its more than 15 years after the iPhone was released. Tesla's connector was first used in 2012 and the much clunkier industry-standard CCS2 connector was not standardized until 2014.

What was SpaceX supposed to do? Wait until the standards bodies got their act together? There are already about 3000 Starlink satellites in space.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 10/15/2022 10:10 am
The “Starlink at war” thread first got cleaned, then moved to the restricted Space Policy section, then briefly frozen, then at last, THANKFULLY, deleted. Because people couldn’t keen their personal Ukraine opinions out of the discussion.

Now the same culprits are bringing those opinions here. If you’re going to slag off Elon for his views on Ukraine, then people like me are going to respond to defend him, and then this thread too will be locked.

So please just keep that garbage out of this discussion.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/15/2022 05:02 pm
3. Starlink is not interoperable with other providers is not a indiscretion, there is no law or regulation says they must be interoperable, saying DoD has a problem with this is like saying NASA having a problem with Dragon not being able to launch on Atlas V, it's complete BS. If DoD wants Starlink to be interoperable with other providers, they need to pay for it, either directly or by buying a lot of services, it's as simple as that.
This is like Tesla charger ports or Apple charger ports. Starlink was already being designed and deployed before the rest of the industry was doing anything about compatibility, so they implemented a solution. Later, some folks began bemoaning the fact that Starlink (Tesla, Apple) were not using the industry standard. The Apple and Tesla implementations are far superior to the kludges that the standards bodies came up with much later. In the case of Apple, USB-C is finally an acceptable standard, but its more than 15 years after the iPhone was released. Tesla's connector was first used in 2012 and the much clunkier industry-standard CCS2 connector was not standardized until 2014.

What was SpaceX supposed to do? Wait until the standards bodies got their act together? There are already about 3000 Starlink satellites in space.
Apple and their connectors are a bad example, IMO. They try mightily to keep customers in their ecosystem/serfdom.


Argument can be made that Tesla does the same. It was always within their power to offer their connector to a standards body as a de facto standard with a small licensing fee attached.


StarLink, OTOH, is too complex to treat this way. At least not easily (opinion). So many wrinkles to iron out to make it work. Conceivably distribution and last mile could be treated as two distinct services making it 'easier' but not easy. What a bowl of spaghetti that would be.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/15/2022 05:49 pm
Tesla has welcomed other companies to use their standard. They, and the standards bodies, don’t want it because it means admitting defeat and giving up a leverage option they could use to punish Tesla for being early EV makers.

Except for Aptera. Aptera wants to use the Tesla plug. I like Aptera.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/15/2022 05:49 pm
3. Starlink is not interoperable with other providers is not a indiscretion, there is no law or regulation says they must be interoperable, saying DoD has a problem with this is like saying NASA having a problem with Dragon not being able to launch on Atlas V, it's complete BS. If DoD wants Starlink to be interoperable with other providers, they need to pay for it, either directly or by buying a lot of services, it's as simple as that.
This is like Tesla charger ports or Apple charger ports. Starlink was already being designed and deployed before the rest of the industry was doing anything about compatibility, so they implemented a solution. Later, some folks began bemoaning the fact that Starlink (Tesla, Apple) were not using the industry standard. The Apple and Tesla implementations are far superior to the kludges that the standards bodies came up with much later. In the case of Apple, USB-C is finally an acceptable standard, but its more than 15 years after the iPhone was released. Tesla's connector was first used in 2012 and the much clunkier industry-standard CCS2 connector was not standardized until 2014.

What was SpaceX supposed to do? Wait until the standards bodies got their act together? There are already about 3000 Starlink satellites in space.
Apple and their connectors are a bad example, IMO. They try mightily to keep customers in their ecosystem/serfdom.
I don't like Apple's closed ecosystem one little bit. My point is that they did not have a choice at the time they introduced the iPhone.
Quote
Argument can be made that Tesla does the same. It was always within their power to offer their connector to a standards body as a de facto standard with a small licensing fee attached.
But Tesla did offer to do this. I cannot find the precise mention of the connector, although I remember it. More generally:
    https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
Quote
StarLink, OTOH, is too complex to treat this way. At least not easily (opinion). So many wrinkles to iron out to make it work. Conceivably distribution and last mile could be treated as two distinct services making it 'easier' but not easy. What a bowl of spaghetti that would be.
This depends on where the interfaces are to be implemented. It is IMO infeasible to allow a non-Starlink terminal to interwork with Starlink satellites, but it is not infeasible to establish in-space gateways between constellations. This would require standardization of the gateway ISLs, which would not need to be identical to any providers intra-constellation ISLs. It would also require that the higher-layer protocol on the gateway links be generic: almost certainly IP. There is a fully-functional method for interconnecting IP networks that resulted in a multi-vendor system: it's called the Internet. Each constellation would implement its own gateway satellites that use their own intra-constellation protocols to communicate with the constellation and use the gateway-standard ISLs to communicate with other constellations' gateways. But complaining that Starlink does not currently use an industry standard is just plain stupid.

And it is still the case that standards are generated by committees and end up with a lot of extraneous garbage. I've been in those committee meetings, and I have also implemented and promulgated a (trivial) open standard that was pretty much instantly adopted, primarily because it was dead simple and required zero licensing paperwork.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 10/15/2022 09:43 pm
Tesla has welcomed other companies to use their standard. They, and the standards bodies, don’t want it because it means admitting defeat and giving up a leverage option they could use to punish Tesla for being early EV makers.

Except for Aptera. Aptera wants to use the Tesla plug. I like Aptera.

As a particular example, Mercedes was using Tesla components at the time and opted not to use their plug because they didn't want their cars to be seen charging at other brands facilities. As CCS was not standardized yet, they delivered them without any DC charging option...

Returning to the topic, I find the discussion of interoperability at the satellite-ground station level a bit contrived and if it ever is written into a procurement will likely result in lawsuits. If you want interoperability, do what the 5G standard did and move all services onto an IP backbone and use each providers specific equipment to join their network.

A possibility I do see over time might be laser interchanges on orbit just as there are in terrestrial internet as each provider could offer mutually beneficial clients and ground stations. But just as on Earth, these will be negotiated between providers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/17/2022 08:44 pm
The “Starlink at war” thread first got cleaned, then moved to the restricted Space Policy section, then briefly frozen, then at last, THANKFULLY, deleted. Because people couldn’t keen their personal Ukraine opinions out of the discussion.

Now the same culprits are bringing those opinions here. If you’re going to slag off Elon for his views on Ukraine, then people like me are going to respond to defend him, and then this thread too will be locked.

So please just keep that garbage out of this discussion.

Moderator:
I see that some of the same posting behavior that got the "Starlink @ War" thread deleted is occurring here now, by some of the same people.  One, in particular, is a repeat offender.

I also see eight posts were deleted today.

Knock it off.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 10/17/2022 11:53 pm
A possibility I do see over time might be laser interchanges on orbit just as there are in terrestrial internet as each provider could offer mutually beneficial clients and ground stations. But just as on Earth, these will be negotiated between providers.

That's an interesting comparison, laser interchanges similar to internet exchanges/POP's. There are some nascent startups trying to work the ISL network concept, and the SDA constellation is trying to standardize heterogeneous ISL interfaces.

Though that brings up an interesting issue, location. GEO is far (where latency matters...), but simpler for the terrestrial linkage. Any ISL POP exchange though means high slew rates for any sat by definition, so there's no specific benefit to GEO from that perspective. Something MEO? Maybe a set of terminator riding SSO sats, so they are well powered 24/7?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Kiwi53 on 10/18/2022 12:37 am
Returning to the topic, I find the discussion of interoperability at the satellite-ground station level a bit contrived and if it ever is written into a procurement will likely result in lawsuits. If you want interoperability, do what the 5G standard did and move all services onto an IP backbone and use each providers specific equipment to join their network.

This

Also, what other LEO Broadband service is Starlink supposed to interoperate with?
There isn't any  - OneWeb is *nearly* there but if there's an interoperability problem it'd be between OneWeb & Starlink, and OneWeb's to resolve, not between Starlink and some GEOSAT provider or Starlink and a narrowband MEOSAT provider.

To me, US DoD sound like some early twentieth century army general complaining that Henry Ford's newfangled transport system isn't interoperable with the Army's hay & oats distribution network.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/18/2022 01:03 am
Polaris Dawn will demonstrate connecting Starlink to Dragon. No reason this couldn't be with ISS or OneWeb (well, OneWeb v1.0 probably too small to host the lasers) or maybe even MEO or GEO satellites (although the range is more for these latter two, so it'd be non-trivial... but they want to eventually go to Mars).

Also, the Air Force is interested in lasercomms both direct to ground and direct to airborne assets. Starlink could also do direct laser to ground base stations to get high bandwidth, although in a stochastic fashion due to weather.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: dplot123 on 10/18/2022 02:53 am
I think SpaceX had a PR failure by not responding to the CNN story on the specific number of terminals they provided free service to. It's written confusingly in the CNN article, and some news outlets further distorted it. Some people think SpaceX made up the $4,500 cost and charged $1,350 for some of the terminals and pretended to cover the $3,150 rest. People believe SpaceX didn't donate anything because of payment receipts on twitter.

Later, Elon clarified 10k terminals are being paid for by governments or private citizens and 15,000 have their service fully donated by SpaceX. Also, government tier service not being mentioned on their website led people to believe that the price was made up and not a standard rate for service beyond business tier even if it's available if an organization contacts SpaceX directly. All that could have been clarified by responding to requests for comment or writing an article on their website like during the geomagnetic storm incident. Now, misinformation videos are accruing hundreds of thousands of views, and it's still being distorted on social media. Millions of impressions on social media posts claiming SpaceX isn't paying for anything.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1582098412501364736
Quote
To be precise, 25,300 terminals were sent to Ukraine, but, at present, only 10,630 are paying for service
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: chopsticks on 10/18/2022 03:40 am
That Thunderf00t character's content is pure garbage.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 10/18/2022 01:43 pm
Tesla has welcomed other companies to use their standard. They, and the standards bodies, don’t want it because it means admitting defeat and giving up a leverage option they could use to punish Tesla for being early EV makers.

Except for Aptera. Aptera wants to use the Tesla plug. I like Aptera.

Its not about "punishing" Tesla. Its about controlling and influencing the marketplace. This is a common theme, google and apple basically ignore half of "standards bodies" which they do not control and do their own thing anyways.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/18/2022 02:11 pm
Tesla has welcomed other companies to use their standard. They, and the standards bodies, don’t want it because it means admitting defeat and giving up a leverage option they could use to punish Tesla for being early EV makers.

Except for Aptera. Aptera wants to use the Tesla plug. I like Aptera.

Its not about "punishing" Tesla. Its about controlling and influencing the marketplace. This is a common theme, google and apple basically ignore half of "standards bodies" which they do not control and do their own thing anyways.
The Tesla plug is massively better technically, and it’s probably cheaper as well (since it’s much smaller).

It ought to be the standard. Whether Tesla or GM wants that or not.

We’ll see if the Starlink interface is as good, relatively speaking. If so, I’d advocate for that to be the standard (and any required interface IP be opened).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Redclaws on 10/18/2022 02:30 pm
Tesla has welcomed other companies to use their standard. They, and the standards bodies, don’t want it because it means admitting defeat and giving up a leverage option they could use to punish Tesla for being early EV makers.

Except for Aptera. Aptera wants to use the Tesla plug. I like Aptera.

Its not about "punishing" Tesla. Its about controlling and influencing the marketplace. This is a common theme, google and apple basically ignore half of "standards bodies" which they do not control and do their own thing anyways.
The Tesla plug is massively better technically, and it’s probably cheaper as well (since it’s much smaller).

It ought to be the standard. Whether Tesla or GM wants that or not.

We’ll see if the Starlink interface is as good, relatively speaking. If so, I’d advocate for that to be the standard (and any required interface IP be opened).

I don't think there's much incentive to standardize the interface here - The car situation is very different.  There's a huge incentive to make them interoperable so they can do their job, ie, getting cars charged so they can drive around.

The various data networks work well without interoperability and interoperability doesn't offer huge benefits to customers.  (Unlike for electric cars.). The core basic functions of interop are already provided by the internet to which the various providers are connected.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 10/18/2022 03:04 pm
Tesla has welcomed other companies to use their standard. They, and the standards bodies, don’t want it because it means admitting defeat and giving up a leverage option they could use to punish Tesla for being early EV makers.

Except for Aptera. Aptera wants to use the Tesla plug. I like Aptera.

Its not about "punishing" Tesla. Its about controlling and influencing the marketplace. This is a common theme, google and apple basically ignore half of "standards bodies" which they do not control and do their own thing anyways.
The Tesla plug is massively better technically, and it’s probably cheaper as well (since it’s much smaller).

It ought to be the standard. Whether Tesla or GM wants that or not.

We’ll see if the Starlink interface is as good, relatively speaking. If so, I’d advocate for that to be the standard (and any required interface IP be opened).

I don't think there's much incentive to standardize the interface here - The car situation is very different.  There's a huge incentive to make them interoperable so they can do their job, ie, getting cars charged so they can drive around.

The various data networks work well without interoperability and interoperability doesn't offer huge benefits to customers.  (Unlike for electric cars.). The core basic functions of interop are already provided by the internet to which the various providers are connected.

It is fair to say that all systems connected to the internet *ARE* interoperable via IP.   

Seems like a strawman attack on starlink to me.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/18/2022 03:34 pm
The various data networks work well without interoperability and interoperability doesn't offer huge benefits to customers.  (Unlike for electric cars.). The core basic functions of interop are already provided by the internet to which the various providers are connected.
What does this even mean? The Internet is interoperable precisely because a great deal of effort went into creating those standardized interfaces: millions of hours of engineering effort, billions of dollars over a period of 30 years or more. Prior to the Internet the world had multiple incompatible networks, that at best had kludgy interfaces between them. Interoperability has profound benefits for customers at multiple levels.

The Internet won the standards wars because engineers were very dissatisfied with the traditional standards bodies, the glacial pace of standards promulgation, and things like patents and royalties, membership dues, and costs of the printed standards themselves, from ITU, IEEE, ANSI, and other standards bodies. These engineers created basically a grass-roots coordinating body called IETF, whose standards are called "requests for comments". Anyone could join IETF and the RFCs are free. This allowed very rapid innovation and communication. By contrast, the ITU was still producing most of its standards on a quadrennial basis.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ulm_atms on 10/18/2022 03:59 pm
Tesla has welcomed other companies to use their standard. They, and the standards bodies, don’t want it because it means admitting defeat and giving up a leverage option they could use to punish Tesla for being early EV makers.

Except for Aptera. Aptera wants to use the Tesla plug. I like Aptera.

Its not about "punishing" Tesla. Its about controlling and influencing the marketplace. This is a common theme, google and apple basically ignore half of "standards bodies" which they do not control and do their own thing anyways.
The Tesla plug is massively better technically, and it’s probably cheaper as well (since it’s much smaller).

It ought to be the standard. Whether Tesla or GM wants that or not.

We’ll see if the Starlink interface is as good, relatively speaking. If so, I’d advocate for that to be the standard (and any required interface IP be opened).

I don't think there's much incentive to standardize the interface here - The car situation is very different.  There's a huge incentive to make them interoperable so they can do their job, ie, getting cars charged so they can drive around.

The various data networks work well without interoperability and interoperability doesn't offer huge benefits to customers.  (Unlike for electric cars.). The core basic functions of interop are already provided by the internet to which the various providers are connected.
Bolded part:  What in the world are you talking about?  The whole reason the internet as is works is because of interoperability between vendors using standard interfaces/protocols.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/18/2022 04:20 pm
The Starlink network doesn’t necessarily need to be a standard, but I think it would be good if a Starlink laser terminal was a thing you could just buy from SpaceX and put on your satellite to connect directly to the Starlink network. Dragon will have such a laser terminal for Polaris Dawn.

They’d be a good way to interconnect the various megaconstellations.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mark K on 10/18/2022 04:30 pm
The Starlink network doesn’t necessarily need to be a standard, but I think it would be good if a Starlink laser terminal was a thing you could just buy from SpaceX and put on your satellite to connect directly to the Starlink network. Dragon will have such a laser terminal for Polaris Dawn.

They’d be a good way to interconnect the various megaconstellations.

What would connecting to Starlink mean though? would you have to rent use of the satellites, or would this be for low bitrate?
You can't just buy a laser and point it at a Starlink and be connected, the Starlink side has to know about it and deal with unpredictable connections and data flows. Right now for the laser communication in the constellation and even for something like Polaris mission everything is locked down and you can generate a plan for each satellite - look at this for this time interval, then look at that. and it is somewhat deterministic (yes you have to deal with failures, but you can build some logic in for that) You as a user of a Starlink laser would have to somehow get into that mesh. That would probably be expensive. Starlink and SpaceX could create a set of interface satellites I guess if the market was there.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/18/2022 05:18 pm
The Starlink network doesn’t necessarily need to be a standard, but I think it would be good if a Starlink laser terminal was a thing you could just buy from SpaceX and put on your satellite to connect directly to the Starlink network. Dragon will have such a laser terminal for Polaris Dawn.

They’d be a good way to interconnect the various megaconstellations.
If your spacecraft uses a SpaceX-provided Starlink ISL to connect to the Starlink constellation, it becomes part of the Starlink constellation at all levels of the protocol stack, as if it were another Starlink satellite with a user terminal stuck to it. This works just fine for a spacecraft that is functionally an in-space user terminal of the Starlink network. It does not work for an inter-constellation gateway link. These peer-to-peer links need agreed-upon standards all the way up the stack, and they do not generalize. While it is in theory possible for each gateway to become a "terminal" of the other network, this means that connecting N networks requires implementing N2 interconnects. This gets messy very quickly, as the Internet found out long ago. The Internet's initial solution was to create Internet eXchange Points (IXPs) where each network provided equipment, all in one big room, and all of them connected on what was then a super-high-speed LAN.  This was eventually superseded by peer-to-peer agreements made possible by standardized peering protocols.

By comparison to terrestrial fixed comms, Satellite comms have a lot of extra protocol layers to allow for switching links as the satellites move. Any attempt to treat these moves reactively using the Internet routing protocols will fail horribly, because the topology is changing rapidly and continuously. fortunately, the changes are deterministic, so proactive scheduled routing updates can be used.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: waveney on 10/18/2022 05:53 pm
Speaking as somebody who spent ~20 years working in telecoms and data networking standards.   (Was an ATM forum VP for a while).

First of all a working definition of a standard:
"A Mutually Awkward Unworkable Compromise that gives no party any advantage what so ever"

Good ideas never go through standards bodies.  You need to be sufficiently far ahead to become a de-facto standard.

Standards bodies are packed with people whose only role is to hinder the opposition.  It is far far easier to vote something down than get something agreed.   To get something past the awkward squad you have to be clever or hide what you want within a large contribution that solves other peoples problems.

I got something our company wanted in a standard by a lot of hard work, completely re-writing the largest section (that was a mess of tweaks and tweaks upon a poor idea) to be symmetric, then once that was agreed adding 3 lines as a "minor edit" that nobody noticed that completely switched how the interface could be used...

Sometimes standards can be sown up by the right people working together.   At a US standards meeting (T1S for those with long memories) someone from Nortel presented the outline of a good way to bootstrap an interface, this was immediately supported by representatives of AT&T and myself (representing Stromberg-Carlson our US arm)  - all three US manufactures at the time.  This was hated by most operators, but we basically got what we wanted as what had been proposed worked for us...   It never got into a standard, it was just done.

Just some of the many many tales of telecoms standards.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 10/18/2022 07:18 pm
Speaking as somebody who spent ~20 years working in telecoms and data networking standards.   (Was an ATM forum VP for a while).

First of all a working definition of a standard:
"A Mutually Awkward Unworkable Compromise that gives no party any advantage what so ever"

Good ideas never go through standards bodies.  You need to be sufficiently far ahead to become a de-facto standard.

Standards bodies are packed with people whose only role is to hinder the opposition.  It is far far easier to vote something down than get something agreed.   To get something past the awkward squad you have to be clever or hide what you want within a large contribution that solves other peoples problems.

I got something our company wanted in a standard by a lot of hard work, completely re-writing the largest section (that was a mess of tweaks and tweaks upon a poor idea) to be symmetric, then once that was agreed adding 3 lines as a "minor edit" that nobody noticed that completely switched how the interface could be used...

Sometimes standards can be sown up by the right people working together.   At a US standards meeting (T1S for those with long memories) someone from Nortel presented the outline of a good way to bootstrap an interface, this was immediately supported by representatives of AT&T and myself (representing Stromberg-Carlson our US arm)  - all three US manufactures at the time.  This was hated by most operators, but we basically got what we wanted as what had been proposed worked for us...   It never got into a standard, it was just done.

Just some of the many many tales of telecoms standards.
Doesn't the pentagon complain that starlink doesn't want a standard? They are keeping everything proprietary, so no one else can do what they are? Thats the core of the problem.

This space news story details the problem. Its not that others dont want starlink to be standard, its that starlink doesn't even want ANY standard, even their own.
https://spacenews.com/starlinks-market-dominance-affecting-dods-hybrid-network-plans/ (https://spacenews.com/starlinks-market-dominance-affecting-dods-hybrid-network-plans/)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: waveney on 10/18/2022 07:24 pm
Speaking as somebody who spent ~20 years working in telecoms and data networking standards.   (Was an ATM forum VP for a while).

First of all a working definition of a standard:
"A Mutually Awkward Unworkable Compromise that gives no party any advantage what so ever"

Good ideas never go through standards bodies.  You need to be sufficiently far ahead to become a de-facto standard.

Standards bodies are packed with people whose only role is to hinder the opposition.  It is far far easier to vote something down than get something agreed.   To get something past the awkward squad you have to be clever or hide what you want within a large contribution that solves other peoples problems.

I got something our company wanted in a standard by a lot of hard work, completely re-writing the largest section (that was a mess of tweaks and tweaks upon a poor idea) to be symmetric, then once that was agreed adding 3 lines as a "minor edit" that nobody noticed that completely switched how the interface could be used...

Sometimes standards can be sown up by the right people working together.   At a US standards meeting (T1S for those with long memories) someone from Nortel presented the outline of a good way to bootstrap an interface, this was immediately supported by representatives of AT&T and myself (representing Stromberg-Carlson our US arm)  - all three US manufactures at the time.  This was hated by most operators, but we basically got what we wanted as what had been proposed worked for us...   It never got into a standard, it was just done.

Just some of the many many tales of telecoms standards.
Doesn't the pentagon complain that starlink doesn't want a standard? They are keeping everything proprietary, so no one else can do what they are? Thats the core of the problem.

This space news story details the problem. Its not that others dont want starlink to be standard, its that starlink doesn't even want ANY standard, even their own.
https://spacenews.com/starlinks-market-dominance-affecting-dods-hybrid-network-plans/ (https://spacenews.com/starlinks-market-dominance-affecting-dods-hybrid-network-plans/)

As a proprietary system it is more likely to be secure.  I have never ever had dealings with any defence/intelligence department either side of the pond who complained about proprietary systems.  (Was security cleared and knew far more about the UKs networks than most people...)

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 10/18/2022 07:28 pm
Speaking as somebody who spent ~20 years working in telecoms and data networking standards.   (Was an ATM forum VP for a while).

First of all a working definition of a standard:
"A Mutually Awkward Unworkable Compromise that gives no party any advantage what so ever"

Good ideas never go through standards bodies.  You need to be sufficiently far ahead to become a de-facto standard.

Standards bodies are packed with people whose only role is to hinder the opposition.  It is far far easier to vote something down than get something agreed.   To get something past the awkward squad you have to be clever or hide what you want within a large contribution that solves other peoples problems.

I got something our company wanted in a standard by a lot of hard work, completely re-writing the largest section (that was a mess of tweaks and tweaks upon a poor idea) to be symmetric, then once that was agreed adding 3 lines as a "minor edit" that nobody noticed that completely switched how the interface could be used...

Sometimes standards can be sown up by the right people working together.   At a US standards meeting (T1S for those with long memories) someone from Nortel presented the outline of a good way to bootstrap an interface, this was immediately supported by representatives of AT&T and myself (representing Stromberg-Carlson our US arm)  - all three US manufactures at the time.  This was hated by most operators, but we basically got what we wanted as what had been proposed worked for us...   It never got into a standard, it was just done.

Just some of the many many tales of telecoms standards.
Doesn't the pentagon complain that starlink doesn't want a standard? They are keeping everything proprietary, so no one else can do what they are? Thats the core of the problem.

This space news story details the problem. Its not that others dont want starlink to be standard, its that starlink doesn't even want ANY standard, even their own.
https://spacenews.com/starlinks-market-dominance-affecting-dods-hybrid-network-plans/ (https://spacenews.com/starlinks-market-dominance-affecting-dods-hybrid-network-plans/)

As a proprietary system it is more likely to be secure.  I have never ever had dealings with any defence/intelligence department either side of the pond who complained about proprietary systems.  (Was security cleared and knew far more about the UKs networks than most people...)
The DoD can't pay someone to make a different type of antenna for fighters or stealth aircraft for example. Since there is no standard, they have to beg starlink, and if starlink doesn't feel like it - it doesn't happen.

I think you misunderstand some of the the idea of a standard. Its not letting everyone know how all of your system works, its allowing other things to even plug into it.
Otherwise, starlink is a monopoly, which would be NO different from lockheed/boeing. Remember, they wanted to charge the DoD $4500 per month for 1 station of service. That price was only because its the DoD and no competition.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: novo2044 on 10/18/2022 08:17 pm
Speaking as somebody who spent ~20 years working in telecoms and data networking standards.   (Was an ATM forum VP for a while).

First of all a working definition of a standard:
"A Mutually Awkward Unworkable Compromise that gives no party any advantage what so ever"

Good ideas never go through standards bodies.  You need to be sufficiently far ahead to become a de-facto standard.

Standards bodies are packed with people whose only role is to hinder the opposition.  It is far far easier to vote something down than get something agreed.   To get something past the awkward squad you have to be clever or hide what you want within a large contribution that solves other peoples problems.

I got something our company wanted in a standard by a lot of hard work, completely re-writing the largest section (that was a mess of tweaks and tweaks upon a poor idea) to be symmetric, then once that was agreed adding 3 lines as a "minor edit" that nobody noticed that completely switched how the interface could be used...

Sometimes standards can be sown up by the right people working together.   At a US standards meeting (T1S for those with long memories) someone from Nortel presented the outline of a good way to bootstrap an interface, this was immediately supported by representatives of AT&T and myself (representing Stromberg-Carlson our US arm)  - all three US manufactures at the time.  This was hated by most operators, but we basically got what we wanted as what had been proposed worked for us...   It never got into a standard, it was just done.

Just some of the many many tales of telecoms standards.
Doesn't the pentagon complain that starlink doesn't want a standard? They are keeping everything proprietary, so no one else can do what they are? Thats the core of the problem.

This space news story details the problem. Its not that others dont want starlink to be standard, its that starlink doesn't even want ANY standard, even their own.
https://spacenews.com/starlinks-market-dominance-affecting-dods-hybrid-network-plans/ (https://spacenews.com/starlinks-market-dominance-affecting-dods-hybrid-network-plans/)
This article is pretty funny. If the DoD wants to input on Starlinks interfaces, they can pay for it.  Saying Starlink is "several years ahead of the rest of the field" is vague enough, but how many years will it be before a competitor has a suitable launch vehicle and launches enough satellites that they can offer high speed connectivity to the majority of the globe, while also dealing with hacking and jamming efforts from the Russian military?  Especially now that Souyez launches aren't an option.  Kuiper is the obvious competitor but as far as I know they haven't even announced a timeline for launching their constellation and the cost of the launches alone is on the order of $10 Billion and assume Ariane6, Vulcan, and New Glenn all have successful programs.  I suspect they won't be charging that much less for connectivity in a literal war zone.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: daavery on 10/19/2022 02:20 am
The Starlink network doesn’t necessarily need to be a standard, but I think it would be good if a Starlink laser terminal was a thing you could just buy from SpaceX and put on your satellite to connect directly to the Starlink network. Dragon will have such a laser terminal for Polaris Dawn.

They’d be a good way to interconnect the various megaconstellations.
If your spacecraft uses a SpaceX-provided Starlink ISL to connect to the Starlink constellation, it becomes part of the Starlink constellation at all levels of the protocol stack, as if it were another Starlink satellite with a user terminal stuck to it.


as I understand the laser ISL systems they are closest to terrestrial  point to point links - mechanically steared optical links. all links have to be pre-designed and paths programmed to target follow. you can't add a new node without pre planning the use and bandwidth. starlink only has 3 ISL systems and they are probably pre-allocated to point forward/backward in the same plane and the third to the side for cross plane comms
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/19/2022 02:34 am
The Starlink network doesn’t necessarily need to be a standard, but I think it would be good if a Starlink laser terminal was a thing you could just buy from SpaceX and put on your satellite to connect directly to the Starlink network. Dragon will have such a laser terminal for Polaris Dawn.

They’d be a good way to interconnect the various megaconstellations.
If your spacecraft uses a SpaceX-provided Starlink ISL to connect to the Starlink constellation, it becomes part of the Starlink constellation at all levels of the protocol stack, as if it were another Starlink satellite with a user terminal stuck to it.


as I understand the laser ISL systems they are closest to terrestrial  point to point links - mechanically steared optical links. all links have to be pre-designed and paths programmed to target follow. you can't add a new node without pre planning the use and bandwidth. starlink only has 3 ISL systems and they are probably pre-allocated to point forward/backward in the same plane and the third to the side for cross plane comms
You are describing the near-term topology, and even in the near term the topology is dynamic because that third ISL cannot maintain a fixed link: the 'cross-plane comms" varies. There are many theoretical topologies. One conceptually simple one is that the N satellites that share an orbit form a fixed ring using their forward/backward ISLs, and the ring is connected to other rings by the N "extra" links. At any one time, one or more of these extra links can be used to support a "user" satellite. You don't need to precisely pre-allocate the bandwidth. You do need to preplan the link switchovers. Yes, each ISL is point-to-point, and the intra-ring links are more or less fixed. the rest of the are not similar to terrestrial links because they must make and break rapidly but deterministically.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 10/19/2022 02:40 am
Doesn't the pentagon complain that starlink doesn't want a standard? They are keeping everything proprietary, so no one else can do what they are? Thats the core of the problem.

This space news story details the problem. Its not that others dont want starlink to be standard, its that starlink doesn't even want ANY standard, even their own.
https://spacenews.com/starlinks-market-dominance-affecting-dods-hybrid-network-plans/ (https://spacenews.com/starlinks-market-dominance-affecting-dods-hybrid-network-plans/)

As a proprietary system it is more likely to be secure.  I have never ever had dealings with any defence/intelligence department either side of the pond who complained about proprietary systems.  (Was security cleared and knew far more about the UKs networks than most people...)
The DoD can't pay someone to make a different type of antenna for fighters or stealth aircraft for example. Since there is no standard, they have to beg starlink, and if starlink doesn't feel like it - it doesn't happen.

I think you misunderstand some of the the idea of a standard. Its not letting everyone know how all of your system works, its allowing other things to even plug into it.
Otherwise, starlink is a monopoly, which would be NO different from lockheed/boeing. Remember, they wanted to charge the DoD $4500 per month for 1 station of service. That price was only because its the DoD and no competition.

Of course DoD can pay someone to make a different type of antenna for Starlink, they have already done that: "SpaceX disclosed that for this test it is working with Ball Aerospace, a defense and space contractor, which will provide the antennas necessary for connecting Starlink satellites to an aircraft." (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/12/spacex-prepares-for-air-force-test-of-starlink-satellite-internet.html)

If you actually read the article you're quoting (https://spacenews.com/starlinks-market-dominance-affecting-dods-hybrid-network-plans/), you'll see it's not about user terminal at all, it's about ISL. DIU wants to "get every satellite talking to every other satellite", this wouldn't be possible unless all of them share a common ISL protocol. SpaceX is using their own proprietary protocol and probably doesn't want to share it, which is completely understandable. The alternative is Starlink carries a separate laser terminal for this common standard on every satellite, which would be costly. And it's not clear this DIU initiative has the full backing of DoD and can translate into actual contracts, so why should SpaceX be jumping into this?

Note another news came out at the same time that Kuiper is will be linked to DoD's mesh network in space (https://spacenews.com/amazon-to-link-kuiper-satellites-to-dods-mesh-network-in-space/). But if you actually read it, you'll see they're still in discussion with SDA (which likely means they need to hash out the price). And Kuiper wouldn't be opening up their own ISL either, they'll just install some SDA compatible laser terminal on some of their satellites. So in a sense, Kuiper wouldn't be "interoperable" either, at least not the full constellation. So this shows SpaceX's behavior is not at all unique among mega-constellation companies.

I wouldn't be surprised if Starlink does something similar to Kuiper, basically carries SDA laser terminal on some of their satellites, if the price is right of course.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: daavery on 10/19/2022 02:43 am
"rapidly" is probably not that fast , i suspect repoint times are 1+ secs per move. from the pics i have seen the ISL is an el-az mount and accuracy is probably emphasized over movement speed
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/19/2022 02:48 am
"rapidly" is probably not that fast , i suspect repoint times are 1+ secs per move. from the pics i have seen the ISL is an el-az mount and accuracy is probably emphasized over movement speed
While any one link will break and make on order 1 sec, the forwarding tables will be changed in advance so that user traffic is not routed across a link that is about to break. The outages are strictly deterministic and known in advance.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/20/2022 07:42 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1582997766741327873

Quote
SpaceX has more active satellites in orbit than rest of Earth combined, tracking to double rest of Earth soon
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/20/2022 08:51 pm
Um, uh. I think a reality check is in order. Systems interoperability has been a DoD goal for decades. Satellites just add another layer to a moving target.


One of StarLink's (and other constellations) strengths from a military pov is the redundancy which, again from of military pov, means resilience to attack. Any interoperability solution that includes special orbital gateways is just creating targets. Any ISL between constellations would absolutely require major software changes no matter what non-proprietary protocols are developed. Most likely hardware changes too. So (opinion) it isn't going to happen fast and probably isn't going to happen in the current generation of sats.


What could work as a backstop while waiting for the real thing is routing through ground based assets. Each operator would handle their own up/downlink gateways and transfer data to other operators via the internet. It sucks for low latency needs like flying a drone but would be fine for big picture situational awareness type needs. Work with what ya got.


Late thought. It is technically feasible for operators to co-locate ground gateways at each other's gateway sites allowing direct connection between constellations and avoiding the bulk of the ground latency. From a business pov, I really don't know.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Brovane on 10/20/2022 11:49 pm

The DoD can't pay someone to make a different type of antenna for fighters or stealth aircraft for example. Since there is no standard, they have to beg starlink, and if starlink doesn't feel like it - it doesn't happen.

I think you misunderstand some of the the idea of a standard. Its not letting everyone know how all of your system works, its allowing other things to even plug into it.
Otherwise, starlink is a monopoly, which would be NO different from lockheed/boeing. Remember, they wanted to charge the DoD $4500 per month for 1 station of service. That price was only because its the DoD and no competition.



They wanted to charge the DOD $4500 a month because that is the level of service that Starlink was being asked to deliver. 

Is SpaceX's pricing out of line with it's competitors offering for Mobile Satellite Internet service? 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/20/2022 11:59 pm

The DoD can't pay someone to make a different type of antenna for fighters or stealth aircraft for example. Since there is no standard, they have to beg starlink, and if starlink doesn't feel like it - it doesn't happen.

I think you misunderstand some of the the idea of a standard. Its not letting everyone know how all of your system works, its allowing other things to even plug into it.
Otherwise, starlink is a monopoly, which would be NO different from lockheed/boeing. Remember, they wanted to charge the DoD $4500 per month for 1 station of service. That price was only because its the DoD and no competition.



They wanted to charge the DOD $4500 a month because that is the level of service that Starlink was being asked to deliver. 

Is SpaceX's pricing out of line with it's competitors offering for Mobile Satellite Internet service?

Somehow I doubt the DoD is getting a measly 50GB per month. Probably higher bandwidth capacity, IMO.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: dplot123 on 10/21/2022 08:34 am
A paper was released, which evaluates Satellite broadband. The paper claims Viasat-3, telesat, and SES mPower are the best price/Mbps for 15% return whilst still adhering to the demand curve. They say SpaceX's prices are too high to make full use of the constellation capacity based on the demand curve. The conclusion is that LEO broadband is less affordable and viable than MEO or GEO because of the huge capex costs.

Not sure this study means much since with GEO the value of low latency isn't priced in. Also, it compares Viasat's next generation satellites to Starlink v1. v2 is 60Gbps initially and Elon said later versions will be 200Gbps or 10x gen 1. The cost isn't available for those satellites, but they are expected to begin launching sometime in 2023 just like viasat-3. No analysis of user terminal cost either for GEO vs. LEO.

SpaceX's prices have been too high and even high income Europe only has 75k customers vs. hundreds of thousands in the US. SpaceX needs to get terminal cost down and the cost of adding/maintaining a user, so they can slash prices or else the satellite capacity over countries won't be utilized fully. Satellite to phone shifts antenna cost cheaply to subscribers, and they can charge a couple dollars a month for basic service because of that like what AST SpaceMobile plans to do.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sat.1464#.Y1BFjcXdxJc


(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/7cbaa406-e5cc-4213-8b59-deef9298cf20/sat1464-fig-0003-m.jpg)

(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/05ad3733-cc3b-4796-b528-3bf6bda48809/sat1464-fig-0002-m.jpg)


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: dondar on 10/21/2022 11:52 am


SpaceX's prices have been too high and even high income Europe only has 75k customers vs. hundreds of thousands in the US. SpaceX needs to get terminal cost down and the cost of adding/maintaining a user, so they can slash prices or else the satellite capacity over countries won't be utilized fully. Satellite to phone shifts antenna cost cheaply to subscribers, and they can charge a couple dollars a month for basic service because of that like what AST SpaceMobile plans to do.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sat.1464#.Y1BFjcXdxJc

They use wrong numbers for most of the providers. SpaceX numbers are just ...15bln capex for 10tbs? really?.
 The only true part of the "study" (which can be written in one paragraph) is the obvious fact of significantly higher initial CAPEX for LEO networks. Basically you do need significant number of sat. to have 24/7 coverage. It is a requirement. The rest is just plain garbage.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 10/21/2022 12:16 pm


SpaceX's prices have been too high and even high income Europe only has 75k customers vs. hundreds of thousands in the US. SpaceX needs to get terminal cost down and the cost of adding/maintaining a user, so they can slash prices or else the satellite capacity over countries won't be utilized fully. Satellite to phone shifts antenna cost cheaply to subscribers, and they can charge a couple dollars a month for basic service because of that like what AST SpaceMobile plans to do.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sat.1464#.Y1BFjcXdxJc

They use wrong numbers for most of the providers. SpaceX numbers are just ...15bln capex for 10tbs? really?.
 The only true part of the "study" (which can be written in one paragraph) is the obvious fact of significantly higher initial CAPEX for LEO networks. Basically you do need significant number of sat. to have 24/7 coverage. It is a requirement. The rest is just plain garbage.

Without wanting to sound too dismissive, all of their numbers seem to have been pulled from a certain orifice, potentially located on the body of a GEO operator. Their claimed expenditure would mean that for deploying the initial constellation, every one of SpaceXs 10k employees would have to put $1,500,000 of work towards Starlink alone.

I particularly enjoy their thorough analysis of "Starlink can profitably provide cable-like service at cable-like prices, so we estimate the market size at hm... a few thousand subscribers?"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jimvela on 10/21/2022 12:31 pm
A paper was released, which evaluates Satellite broadband.

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

The existing, deployed constellation and its existing subscriber base expose this as little more than make believe.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Brovane on 10/21/2022 12:47 pm

The DoD can't pay someone to make a different type of antenna for fighters or stealth aircraft for example. Since there is no standard, they have to beg starlink, and if starlink doesn't feel like it - it doesn't happen.

I think you misunderstand some of the the idea of a standard. Its not letting everyone know how all of your system works, its allowing other things to even plug into it.
Otherwise, starlink is a monopoly, which would be NO different from lockheed/boeing. Remember, they wanted to charge the DoD $4500 per month for 1 station of service. That price was only because its the DoD and no competition.



They wanted to charge the DOD $4500 a month because that is the level of service that Starlink was being asked to deliver. 

Is SpaceX's pricing out of line with it's competitors offering for Mobile Satellite Internet service?

Somehow I doubt the DoD is getting a measly 50GB per month. Probably higher bandwidth capacity, IMO.

Exactly, SpaceX is offering more bandwidth and probably unlimited data for a mobile satellite internet service that is considerably better than it's competitors.  The people who criticize the $4500/month don't understand the current market pricing for this type of service. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 10/21/2022 01:06 pm
A paper was released, which evaluates Satellite broadband.

Lead author is currently working for SES, so there is that.

Also if I'm not mistaken, they got to their conclusion by building a unified model for all satellite systems (GEO, MEO, LEO), this means they're ignoring the fact that Starlink gets much cheaper launch than the others. And they validated their model using GEO satellites and LEO constellations from the 1990~2000, so no wonder they thought Starlink v1 would cost more than $10B, since they're basically assuming Starlink will be built by old space.

This is like how NASA used NAFCOM to estimate Falcon 9 v1.0 and concluded that it would cost $4B, it really just shows how SpaceX's way of doing things is much cheaper. At least in NASA's case they know their estimate is wrong and they tried to find out why, unlike the authors of this paper.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: novo2044 on 10/21/2022 01:36 pm

The DoD can't pay someone to make a different type of antenna for fighters or stealth aircraft for example. Since there is no standard, they have to beg starlink, and if starlink doesn't feel like it - it doesn't happen.

I think you misunderstand some of the the idea of a standard. Its not letting everyone know how all of your system works, its allowing other things to even plug into it.
Otherwise, starlink is a monopoly, which would be NO different from lockheed/boeing. Remember, they wanted to charge the DoD $4500 per month for 1 station of service. That price was only because its the DoD and no competition.



They wanted to charge the DOD $4500 a month because that is the level of service that Starlink was being asked to deliver. 

Is SpaceX's pricing out of line with it's competitors offering for Mobile Satellite Internet service?

Somehow I doubt the DoD is getting a measly 50GB per month. Probably higher bandwidth capacity, IMO.

Exactly, SpaceX is offering more bandwidth and probably unlimited data for a mobile satellite internet service that is considerably better than it's competitors.  The people who criticize the $4500/month don't understand the current market pricing for this type of service.
Yeah.  Comparing residential service in the US vs in the field service in a literal warzone while dealing with nation-state level hacking and jamming attempts is ludicrous.  For comparison, Oneweb commercial in Alaska offer attached.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 10/21/2022 01:55 pm

The DoD can't pay someone to make a different type of antenna for fighters or stealth aircraft for example. Since there is no standard, they have to beg starlink, and if starlink doesn't feel like it - it doesn't happen.

I think you misunderstand some of the the idea of a standard. Its not letting everyone know how all of your system works, its allowing other things to even plug into it.
Otherwise, starlink is a monopoly, which would be NO different from lockheed/boeing. Remember, they wanted to charge the DoD $4500 per month for 1 station of service. That price was only because its the DoD and no competition.



They wanted to charge the DOD $4500 a month because that is the level of service that Starlink was being asked to deliver. 

Is SpaceX's pricing out of line with it's competitors offering for Mobile Satellite Internet service?

Somehow I doubt the DoD is getting a measly 50GB per month. Probably higher bandwidth capacity, IMO.

Exactly, SpaceX is offering more bandwidth and probably unlimited data for a mobile satellite internet service that is considerably better than it's competitors.  The people who criticize the $4500/month don't understand the current market pricing for this type of service.
The thing is, soo many of the people don't need and aren't asking for that much.
They are paying for significantly cheaper packages, and musk is giving them higher service levels not asked for. Then he is complaining that its costing him soo much to give higher service than what the customer is paying for (because are significant percentage of ukrainian users are actually paying for some level of service).
Don't fall for the false claims that its all unpaid for service, because soo much of it IS paid for. All the receivers that different governments are purchasing also come with a usage plan.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: launchwatcher on 10/21/2022 04:42 pm
Via: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/10/21/1062001/spacex-starlink-signals-reverse-engineered-gps/

I found:

Signal Structure of the Starlink Ku-Band Downlink (https://radionavlab.ae.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/starlink-structure.pdf) (PDF) by Todd E. Humphreys, Peter A. Iannucci, Zacharias Komodromos, and Andrew M. Graff, all of The University of Texas at Austin.

The paper describes the structure of the Starlink downlink signal in detail and discusses (among other things) features in the signal that might be usable for positioning, navigation, and timing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: matthewkantar on 10/21/2022 04:44 pm
There is no question SpaceX is giving some stuff away and bumping people and institutions out of line to benefit Ukraine.

The beef is that SpaceX is not giving everything away. Take a pill.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: snotis on 10/21/2022 06:26 pm
Via: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/10/21/1062001/spacex-starlink-signals-reverse-engineered-gps/

I found:

Signal Structure of the Starlink Ku-Band Downlink (https://radionavlab.ae.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/starlink-structure.pdf) (PDF) by Todd E. Humphreys, Peter A. Iannucci, Zacharias Komodromos, and Andrew M. Graff, all of The University of Texas at Austin.

The paper describes the structure of the Starlink downlink signal in detail and discusses (among other things) features in the signal that might be usable for positioning, navigation, and timing.

Elon Musk on Twitter:

Quote
Headline is misleading. Starlink can obviously offer far more robust positioning than GPS, as it will have ~1000X more satellites over time.

Not all will have line of sight to users, but still >10X GPS & far stronger signal.

Just not today’s problem.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1583524820792188929 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1583524820792188929)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Brovane on 10/21/2022 07:03 pm

The thing is, soo many of the people don't need and aren't asking for that much.
They are paying for significantly cheaper packages, and musk is giving them higher service levels not asked for. Then he is complaining that its costing him soo much to give higher service than what the customer is paying for (because are significant percentage of ukrainian users are actually paying for some level of service).
Don't fall for the false claims that its all unpaid for service, because soo much of it IS paid for. All the receivers that different governments are purchasing also come with a usage plan.

How do you know the level of services that the Ukrainian military and government are asking for? 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/21/2022 08:58 pm

Elon Musk on Twitter:

Quote
Headline is misleading. Starlink can obviously offer far more robust positioning than GPS, as it will have ~1000X more satellites over time.

Not all will have line of sight to users, but still >10X GPS & far stronger signal.

Just not today’s problem.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1583524820792188929 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1583524820792188929)

I do have one issue with that, you should never have line of sight on more than one transmitting satellite at a time. Might not be useful for getting a location fix while in motion. It would be more like Transit than GPS. Though, unlike Transit, you always have a Starlink transiting.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: launchwatcher on 10/21/2022 11:01 pm
I do have one issue with that, you should never have line of sight on more than one transmitting satellite at a time. Might not be useful for getting a location fix while in motion. It would be more like Transit than GPS. Though, unlike Transit, you always have a Starlink transiting.
Did you read the paper?

You will have line-of-sight to multiple satellites.   Only one or two will be aiming a downlink beam at the cell you're in
(two is likely for seamless make-before-break handoff):
Quote
Only one or two Starlink satellites illuminate a coverage cell at any one time with a data-bearing beam
(from section II, emphasis added).

But they believe the frame preambles can also be picked up from beams aimed at nearby cells:
Quote
Importantly, phase coherence is maintained throughout each frame, and the phase relationship between the synchronization sequences appears to be constant across frames and satellites. This implies that time-domain representations of the synchronization sequences (with their respective cyclic prefixes) can be combined to extend the coherent integration interval over each frame, increasing receiver sensitivity and observable measurement accuracy. This technique enables production of pseudorange and Doppler observables below -6 dB SNR, well below the SNR required to support communication. Thus, receivers exploiting Starlink for PNT need not be equipped with high gain antennas and may even be able to extract observables from satellites not servicing their cell.
(from section VI.C, emphasis added)


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/21/2022 11:21 pm
I do have one issue with that, you should never have line of sight on more than one transmitting satellite at a time. Might not be useful for getting a location fix while in motion. It would be more like Transit than GPS. Though, unlike Transit, you always have a Starlink transiting.
Did you read the paper?

You will have line-of-sight to multiple satellites.   Only one or two will be aiming a downlink beam at the cell you're in
(two is likely for seamless make-before-break handoff):
Quote
Only one or two Starlink satellites illuminate a coverage cell at any one time with a data-bearing beam
(from section II, emphasis added).

But they believe the frame preambles can also be picked up from beams aimed at nearby cells:
Quote
Importantly, phase coherence is maintained throughout each frame, and the phase relationship between the synchronization sequences appears to be constant across frames and satellites. This implies that time-domain representations of the synchronization sequences (with their respective cyclic prefixes) can be combined to extend the coherent integration interval over each frame, increasing receiver sensitivity and observable measurement accuracy. This technique enables production of pseudorange and Doppler observables below -6 dB SNR, well below the SNR required to support communication. Thus, receivers exploiting Starlink for PNT need not be equipped with high gain antennas and may even be able to extract observables from satellites not servicing their cell.
(from section VI.C, emphasis added)
If you are in the network, then your terminal learns exactly where it is quite quickly as part of the protocol, because the satellites and the terminal are in effect learning the round-trip delay to within about one microsecond, and the satellite is telling the terminal where the satellite is and its ephemeris. If the terminal is not itself moving, then it refines this position even further when it switches satellites. It's only if you are using non-Starlink receive-only equipment that you have a problem.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/21/2022 11:52 pm
That's the difference between an active and passive system like GPS. With GPS  you only need the receiver. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/22/2022 12:43 am
That's the difference between an active and passive system like GPS. With GPS  you only need the receiver.
It is doable with Starlink also with just the receiver but not at as good a positional accuracy since the time delays/distance to sats measurements accuracies suffer. But use of more sats than the min 3 or optimal 4 GPS sats will regain some of that loss of accuracy.

Basic NOTE is that I was part of a project that was trying to use GPS to do miss distance measuring in sub meter amounts of kinetic Kill vehicle against a fast moving target at closing velocities of in the km(s)/sec amount. This was in 1988 prior to there being a full set of GPS sats on orbit existing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 10/23/2022 09:37 am
Elon Musk's Starlink Files For Data Imagery, GPS Location Trademarks: Why This Expert Says They're 'Something To Pay Attention To' (https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/10/29364002/elon-musks-starlink-files-for-data-imagery-gps-location-trademarks-why-this-expert-says-theyre-somet)

Quote from: benzinga.com
“There was some new language we didn’t see in other filings,” trademark attorney Josh Gerben of Gerben Law told Benzinga.

One item that stood out to Gerben was the wording of “intent to use Starlink to provide real time imagery from satellites.”

<snip>

The other item that stuck out to Gerben was the language on geo-location systems and global positioning systems.

<snip>

The language of the trademark filing says “excluding the U.S. government’s global positioning systems,” Gerben flagged on Twitter.

“We’re looking at a complete commercial GPS system that Starlink is planning on offering.”

Can see the pending application here: https://trademarks.justia.com/976/29/starlink-97629115.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 10/23/2022 09:53 am
Via: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/10/21/1062001/spacex-starlink-signals-reverse-engineered-gps/

In reply to the above article: https://twitter.com/mikepuchol/status/1583746257511542784

Quote
In addition, Starlink uses the satellite signals to determine the user terminal's position in the presence of GPS jamming. I have verified this experimentally, it takes 5 minutes to use the constellation to determine a "pseudo-GPS" location, then the terminal operates normally.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DreamyPickle on 10/23/2022 01:02 pm
The discussion about Starlink interoperability is very confusing.

When it comes to Inter-Satellite Links it makes a huge amount of sense to have an open standard so that everyone can launch satellites that can get fast connectivity.

Maybe the complaint is that SpaceX is using an entirely proprietary protocol inside its own constellation? That might make sense as the fastest deployment solution.

How realistic is it for an external satellite to establish a laser link to the Starlink constellation? Do the laser rely on mechanical steering towards the target? In that case then maybe radio links would be a better choice for third-party satellites simply because the number of links would be very small.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 10/23/2022 01:29 pm
Starlink is a first ISL capable LEO constellation. It has never been done before. There are no protocols specifically designed for this purpose.
 I also wouldn't be surprised if the protocol evolved at some point based on a real-world testing. For that, you absolutely have to have everything under your control - both satellites and terminals.

Therefore, the idea that "it has to use an open protocol" seems quite weird. You could ask SpaceX to open the protocol yes, but then you'd be effectively forcing SpaceX to subsidize Kuiper/Oneweb.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 10/27/2022 06:43 am
Looks like Starlink is adding soft cap to US users, according to new US TOS: https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1020-91087-64?regionCode=US

Quote
4.2 Residential Service Plans. Residential Service Plans include a monthly allocation of “Priority Access.” Under such plan, after you have used your monthly limit of Priority Access data, you will continue to have an unlimited amount of “Basic Data” for the remainder of your billing cycle. With “Basic Data” your access will no longer be prioritized over traffic generated by other customers during periods of network congestion. In times of network congestion, users with Basic Access may experience slower speeds and reduced performance compared to Priority Access, which may result in degradation or unavailability of certain third-party services or applications. Your usage between 11PM and 7AM will not count toward Priority Access data limits. See the Starlink Fair Use Policy for details on data allocation and the Starlink Specifications for expected performance, per Service Plan.

4.3 Business and Mobility Service Plans. Business and certain Mobility Service Plans are allocated a certain amount data for “Priority Access.” Priority Access data under Business and certain Mobility Service Plans are given network priority over all other data on the Starlink network, including Residential Priority Access. See Starlink Specifications for details on Starlink expected performance per Service Plan. After Priority Access data is exhausted each month based on your data limits set per Service Plan, Starlink will throttle your upload and download speeds for Business and Mobility Service Plans unless additional Priority Access is purchased. See Priority Access data limits and throttled speeds in Starlink Fair Use Policy for more details. Business and Mobility customers who have exhausted their Priority Access and not purchased additional data will experience slower speeds and reduced performance compared to Priority Access. Throttled services will result in degradation or unavailability of certain services or applications, such as streaming video, gaming, or other bandwidth intensive applications. For Business Service Plan, data usage between 11PM and 7AM will not count toward Priority Access data limits. For Mobility Service Plan, your data usage will count toward the Priority Access limits any time you use Starlink,

The exact cap is not known at the moment since the Starlink Fair Use Policy page is not up yet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 10/27/2022 01:59 pm
Looks like Starlink is adding soft cap to US users, according to new US TOS: https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1020-91087-64?regionCode=US

Quote
4.2 Residential Service Plans. Residential Service Plans include a monthly allocation of “Priority Access.” Under such plan, after you have used your monthly limit of Priority Access data, you will continue to have an unlimited amount of “Basic Data” for the remainder of your billing cycle. With “Basic Data” your access will no longer be prioritized over traffic generated by other customers during periods of network congestion. In times of network congestion, users with Basic Access may experience slower speeds and reduced performance compared to Priority Access, which may result in degradation or unavailability of certain third-party services or applications. Your usage between 11PM and 7AM will not count toward Priority Access data limits. See the Starlink Fair Use Policy for details on data allocation and the Starlink Specifications for expected performance, per Service Plan.

4.3 Business and Mobility Service Plans. Business and certain Mobility Service Plans are allocated a certain amount data for “Priority Access.” Priority Access data under Business and certain Mobility Service Plans are given network priority over all other data on the Starlink network, including Residential Priority Access. See Starlink Specifications for details on Starlink expected performance per Service Plan. After Priority Access data is exhausted each month based on your data limits set per Service Plan, Starlink will throttle your upload and download speeds for Business and Mobility Service Plans unless additional Priority Access is purchased. See Priority Access data limits and throttled speeds in Starlink Fair Use Policy for more details. Business and Mobility customers who have exhausted their Priority Access and not purchased additional data will experience slower speeds and reduced performance compared to Priority Access. Throttled services will result in degradation or unavailability of certain services or applications, such as streaming video, gaming, or other bandwidth intensive applications. For Business Service Plan, data usage between 11PM and 7AM will not count toward Priority Access data limits. For Mobility Service Plan, your data usage will count toward the Priority Access limits any time you use Starlink,

The exact cap is not known at the moment since the Starlink Fair Use Policy page is not up yet.
Wow, starlink is going comcast and verizon lol. "Priority access".

Of course, they are just writing down what has been happening. In the oversold areas, bandwidth can be near dialup modem levels. There is a reason the FCC said starlink bandwidth is too low (when averaged across the country - yes this is for whoever feels the need to pipe up and say they have good speeds).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 10/27/2022 03:25 pm
Looks like Starlink is adding soft cap to US users, according to new US TOS: https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1020-91087-64?regionCode=US

Quote
4.2 Residential Service Plans. Residential Service Plans include a monthly allocation of “Priority Access.” Under such plan, after you have used your monthly limit of Priority Access data, you will continue to have an unlimited amount of “Basic Data” for the remainder of your billing cycle. With “Basic Data” your access will no longer be prioritized over traffic generated by other customers during periods of network congestion. In times of network congestion, users with Basic Access may experience slower speeds and reduced performance compared to Priority Access, which may result in degradation or unavailability of certain third-party services or applications. Your usage between 11PM and 7AM will not count toward Priority Access data limits. See the Starlink Fair Use Policy for details on data allocation and the Starlink Specifications for expected performance, per Service Plan.

4.3 Business and Mobility Service Plans. Business and certain Mobility Service Plans are allocated a certain amount data for “Priority Access.” Priority Access data under Business and certain Mobility Service Plans are given network priority over all other data on the Starlink network, including Residential Priority Access. See Starlink Specifications for details on Starlink expected performance per Service Plan. After Priority Access data is exhausted each month based on your data limits set per Service Plan, Starlink will throttle your upload and download speeds for Business and Mobility Service Plans unless additional Priority Access is purchased. See Priority Access data limits and throttled speeds in Starlink Fair Use Policy for more details. Business and Mobility customers who have exhausted their Priority Access and not purchased additional data will experience slower speeds and reduced performance compared to Priority Access. Throttled services will result in degradation or unavailability of certain services or applications, such as streaming video, gaming, or other bandwidth intensive applications. For Business Service Plan, data usage between 11PM and 7AM will not count toward Priority Access data limits. For Mobility Service Plan, your data usage will count toward the Priority Access limits any time you use Starlink,

The exact cap is not known at the moment since the Starlink Fair Use Policy page is not up yet.
Wow, starlink is going comcast and verizon lol. "Priority access".

Of course, they are just writing down what has been happening. In the oversold areas, bandwidth can be near dialup modem levels. There is a reason the FCC said starlink bandwidth is too low (when averaged across the country - yes this is for whoever feels the need to pipe up and say they have good speeds).

No problem. Any unhappy customers will switch to competitors then, surely? (Wouldn’t hold my breath, though).

This is like complaining about F9 costing $60M for 15 tons to orbit, while competitors are still charging $100M+ for 10 tons.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 10/27/2022 04:39 pm
Looks like Starlink is adding soft cap to US users, according to new US TOS: https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1020-91087-64?regionCode=US

Quote
4.2 Residential Service Plans. Residential Service Plans include a monthly allocation of “Priority Access.” Under such plan, after you have used your monthly limit of Priority Access data, you will continue to have an unlimited amount of “Basic Data” for the remainder of your billing cycle. With “Basic Data” your access will no longer be prioritized over traffic generated by other customers during periods of network congestion. In times of network congestion, users with Basic Access may experience slower speeds and reduced performance compared to Priority Access, which may result in degradation or unavailability of certain third-party services or applications. Your usage between 11PM and 7AM will not count toward Priority Access data limits. See the Starlink Fair Use Policy for details on data allocation and the Starlink Specifications for expected performance, per Service Plan.

4.3 Business and Mobility Service Plans. Business and certain Mobility Service Plans are allocated a certain amount data for “Priority Access.” Priority Access data under Business and certain Mobility Service Plans are given network priority over all other data on the Starlink network, including Residential Priority Access. See Starlink Specifications for details on Starlink expected performance per Service Plan. After Priority Access data is exhausted each month based on your data limits set per Service Plan, Starlink will throttle your upload and download speeds for Business and Mobility Service Plans unless additional Priority Access is purchased. See Priority Access data limits and throttled speeds in Starlink Fair Use Policy for more details. Business and Mobility customers who have exhausted their Priority Access and not purchased additional data will experience slower speeds and reduced performance compared to Priority Access. Throttled services will result in degradation or unavailability of certain services or applications, such as streaming video, gaming, or other bandwidth intensive applications. For Business Service Plan, data usage between 11PM and 7AM will not count toward Priority Access data limits. For Mobility Service Plan, your data usage will count toward the Priority Access limits any time you use Starlink,

The exact cap is not known at the moment since the Starlink Fair Use Policy page is not up yet.

Figured they'd have to do this eventually. Interested in what the cap will be, and glad they are leaving in a nighttime window -- I usually schedule any large downloads in the evening anyway.

I should also note that as a Best Effort customer I am already prioritized behind everybody else, and so far the experience has still been better than the best Viasat had to offer. Every once in a while during peak I notice something I'm streaming step down in quality, and so far that's it.

So unless they do something really crazy like put in a less than 100 gig cap, they are still outperforming the competition by a comfortable margin.

Edit to correct Viasat for Verizon
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/27/2022 05:13 pm
The caps may change latter to larger amounts once a large number of the V2 sats make it to orbit increasing throughput capabilities per area for same number of sats by 4 to 10.  The current usage may have mostly been a result of more demand than expected as well as the V2 deployment behind by >6 months from the planning.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: meekGee on 10/27/2022 05:33 pm
Looks like Starlink is adding soft cap to US users, according to new US TOS: https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1020-91087-64?regionCode=US

Quote
4.2 Residential Service Plans. Residential Service Plans include a monthly allocation of “Priority Access.” Under such plan, after you have used your monthly limit of Priority Access data, you will continue to have an unlimited amount of “Basic Data” for the remainder of your billing cycle. With “Basic Data” your access will no longer be prioritized over traffic generated by other customers during periods of network congestion. In times of network congestion, users with Basic Access may experience slower speeds and reduced performance compared to Priority Access, which may result in degradation or unavailability of certain third-party services or applications. Your usage between 11PM and 7AM will not count toward Priority Access data limits. See the Starlink Fair Use Policy for details on data allocation and the Starlink Specifications for expected performance, per Service Plan.

4.3 Business and Mobility Service Plans. Business and certain Mobility Service Plans are allocated a certain amount data for “Priority Access.” Priority Access data under Business and certain Mobility Service Plans are given network priority over all other data on the Starlink network, including Residential Priority Access. See Starlink Specifications for details on Starlink expected performance per Service Plan. After Priority Access data is exhausted each month based on your data limits set per Service Plan, Starlink will throttle your upload and download speeds for Business and Mobility Service Plans unless additional Priority Access is purchased. See Priority Access data limits and throttled speeds in Starlink Fair Use Policy for more details. Business and Mobility customers who have exhausted their Priority Access and not purchased additional data will experience slower speeds and reduced performance compared to Priority Access. Throttled services will result in degradation or unavailability of certain services or applications, such as streaming video, gaming, or other bandwidth intensive applications. For Business Service Plan, data usage between 11PM and 7AM will not count toward Priority Access data limits. For Mobility Service Plan, your data usage will count toward the Priority Access limits any time you use Starlink,

The exact cap is not known at the moment since the Starlink Fair Use Policy page is not up yet.
Wow, starlink is going comcast and verizon lol. "Priority access".

Of course, they are just writing down what has been happening. In the oversold areas, bandwidth can be near dialup modem levels. There is a reason the FCC said starlink bandwidth is too low (when averaged across the country - yes this is for whoever feels the need to pipe up and say they have good speeds).
Of course speeds are low in high density areas - what did you expect?  It's a constellation, not tower-baes cell.

I use it on my van.  It is absolutely spectacular.

You're welcome to not sign up - more bandwidth for the rest of us :)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/27/2022 05:46 pm
Looks like Starlink is adding soft cap to US users, according to new US TOS: https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1020-91087-64?regionCode=US

Quote
4.2 Residential Service Plans. Residential Service Plans include a monthly allocation of “Priority Access.” Under such plan, after you have used your monthly limit of Priority Access data, you will continue to have an unlimited amount of “Basic Data” for the remainder of your billing cycle. With “Basic Data” your access will no longer be prioritized over traffic generated by other customers during periods of network congestion. In times of network congestion, users with Basic Access may experience slower speeds and reduced performance compared to Priority Access, which may result in degradation or unavailability of certain third-party services or applications. Your usage between 11PM and 7AM will not count toward Priority Access data limits. See the Starlink Fair Use Policy for details on data allocation and the Starlink Specifications for expected performance, per Service Plan.

4.3 Business and Mobility Service Plans. Business and certain Mobility Service Plans are allocated a certain amount data for “Priority Access.” Priority Access data under Business and certain Mobility Service Plans are given network priority over all other data on the Starlink network, including Residential Priority Access. See Starlink Specifications for details on Starlink expected performance per Service Plan. After Priority Access data is exhausted each month based on your data limits set per Service Plan, Starlink will throttle your upload and download speeds for Business and Mobility Service Plans unless additional Priority Access is purchased. See Priority Access data limits and throttled speeds in Starlink Fair Use Policy for more details. Business and Mobility customers who have exhausted their Priority Access and not purchased additional data will experience slower speeds and reduced performance compared to Priority Access. Throttled services will result in degradation or unavailability of certain services or applications, such as streaming video, gaming, or other bandwidth intensive applications. For Business Service Plan, data usage between 11PM and 7AM will not count toward Priority Access data limits. For Mobility Service Plan, your data usage will count toward the Priority Access limits any time you use Starlink,

The exact cap is not known at the moment since the Starlink Fair Use Policy page is not up yet.
Wow, starlink is going comcast and verizon lol. "Priority access".

Of course, they are just writing down what has been happening. In the oversold areas, bandwidth can be near dialup modem levels. There is a reason the FCC said starlink bandwidth is too low (when averaged across the country - yes this is for whoever feels the need to pipe up and say they have good speeds).
Of course speeds are low in high density areas - what did you expect?  It's a constellation, not tower-baes cell.

I use it on my van.  It is absolutely spectacular.

You're welcome to not sign up - more bandwidth for the rest of us :)
A NOTE here is that cable Internet is oversubscribed vs the local throughput level and can have at times severe congestion that results in effective low data rates per customer. So it is not just an effect of satellite constellations. Just easier for most cable companies to resolve then for a satellite constellation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 10/27/2022 06:30 pm
Starlink is a first ISL capable LEO constellation. It has never been done before. There are no protocols specifically designed for this purpose.
 I also wouldn't be surprised if the protocol evolved at some point based on a real-world testing. For that, you absolutely have to have everything under your control - both satellites and terminals.

Therefore, the idea that "it has to use an open protocol" seems quite weird. You could ask SpaceX to open the protocol yes, but then you'd be effectively forcing SpaceX to subsidize Kuiper/Oneweb.
I saw a Scott Manley video that said that the original Iridium had ISL for voice calls.

Cheers, Martin

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/27/2022 08:17 pm
I don't get it. People want unlimited access to a finite resource at a set price. What's wrong with this picture?


Maybe I should complain to my grocery store because they charge me more if I want more food. How unfair. /s
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/27/2022 08:57 pm
At the risk of taking this thread in an unwanted direction, Ars Technia published the following.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/russia-threatens-a-retaliatory-strike-against-us-commercial-satellites/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/russia-threatens-a-retaliatory-strike-against-us-commercial-satellites/)


Short take: they're threatening commercial sats that are contributing to Ukraine's war effort. StarLink was not specifically mentioned.


Are these guys nuts? They pizzed Elon off once before and he gutted their commercial launch industry. Ignoring the cost of knocking out these cheap sats, do they want to pizz Elon off again?


Warning: there's a lot here that can legitimately be discussed but please, do not cross the line and get this thread locked. And whatever your views on that mess over there, there are Russian participants on NSF who may disagree. We're all here for our interests in spaceflight, so let's stay away from that line.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 10/27/2022 09:47 pm
At the risk of taking this thread in an unwanted direction, Ars Technia published the following.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/russia-threatens-a-retaliatory-strike-against-us-commercial-satellites/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/russia-threatens-a-retaliatory-strike-against-us-commercial-satellites/)


Short take: they're threatening commercial sats that are contributing to Ukraine's war effort. StarLink was not specifically mentioned.


Are these guys nuts? They pizzed Elon off once before and he gutted their commercial launch industry. Ignoring the cost of knocking out these cheap sats, do they want to pizz Elon off again?


Warning: there's a lot here that can legitimately be discussed but please, do not cross the line and get this thread locked. And whatever your views on that mess over there, there are Russian participants on NSF who may disagree. We're all here for our interests in spaceflight, so let's stay away from that line.
its worthless noise. Russia has been threatening this and nukes for months. They are just blustering and whining because they are losing their attempted genocide in ukraine (though the war crimes are still proceeding apace).
Besides, they can't shoot down all the starlinks, nits not practical. And if they did attack a bunch of US satellites, America will enter and end the war in short order.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: mn on 10/27/2022 10:17 pm
I don't get it. People want unlimited access to a finite resource at a set price. What's wrong with this picture?


Maybe I should complain to my grocery store because they charge me more if I want more food. How unfair. /s

What's wrong is companies promising unlimited data and then changing it.

There is nothing forcing a company to offer unlimited when everyone knows that is not sustainable in the long run.

They (and many other ISP) would be smarter to be upfront and straight about this from the start. Nothing wrong with telling people that the service includes X amount of data with a promise to allow more as long as the bandwidth allows it, at a lower priority. (i.e. exactly what they are saying now, just be upfront and straight about it from the start).

This seems like an unforced PR mistake (IMHO).

ISPs have been doing this stupidity for as long as I can remember and it always bugged me because it was never necessary and just caused complaints.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/27/2022 11:47 pm
I think SpaceX has been pretty forthright about their bandwidth limitations, especially compared to the industry standard.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 10/27/2022 11:48 pm
I don't get it. People want unlimited access to a finite resource at a set price. What's wrong with this picture?


Maybe I should complain to my grocery store because they charge me more if I want more food. How unfair. /s

What's wrong is companies promising unlimited data and then changing it.

There is nothing forcing a company to offer unlimited when everyone knows that is not sustainable in the long run.

They (and many other ISP) would be smarter to be upfront and straight about this from the start. Nothing wrong with telling people that the service includes X amount of data with a promise to allow more as long as the bandwidth allows it, at a lower priority. (i.e. exactly what they are saying now, just be upfront and straight about it from the start).

This seems like an unforced PR mistake (IMHO).

ISPs have been doing this stupidity for as long as I can remember and it always bugged me because it was never necessary and just caused complaints.

Well then you'll be happy to note that, as I mentioned a few posts up, Musk has been open from the start that caps would likely be necessary eventually.

That time is now. And as long as said caps are reasonable for a modern streaming and gaming family, this user is fine with it.

Edit: I'm going to apologize to mn for my tone, as I realize that my post first mentioning Musk's comment about the eventual need to have a cap was actually made on another forum. Mea culpa.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: abaddon on 10/28/2022 12:39 pm
From Re: Starlink : New FCC and ITU Filings thread:

Quote
    Additionally, SpaceX hereby notifies the Commission of its intent, following issuance of
the Gen2 license, to seek a modification of its V-band authorization to significantly reduce the
total number of satellites ultimately on orbit. SpaceX plans to request Commission authorization
to (1) harmonize the orbital parameters of those V-band space stations with those requested in
SpaceX’s pending second-generation (“Gen2”) application and (2) confirm that these V-band
space stations will be operated as payloads onboard a subset of SpaceX’s proposed Gen2 satellites,
and not as separate spacecraft. This modification will not increase, and may slightly reduce, the
number of V-band space stations and it will not materially affect any other aspects of the V-band
license. SpaceX does not anticipate that this change to its planned V-band operations will alter
any material aspect of its pending application to deploy and operate Gen2 space stations in the Ku-
, Ka-, and E-bands.

Been a while since SpaceX mentioned the V-band satellites; now that makes sense.  They're not giving up their V-band aspirations but will be rolling that into the Gen2 constellation on a subset of Starlinks as a hosted payload.  Maybe limited to the bigger Gen2's that will be launching on Starship?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 10/28/2022 12:46 pm
What's the purpose of the V-band sats? I had expected it'd be just another band for the user terminals. But it doesn't seem so.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/28/2022 01:07 pm
What's the purpose of the V-band sats? I had expected it'd be just another band for the user terminals. But it doesn't seem so.
When I was at another company in 2014, V-band was not considered to a be good choice for space-to-surface. We were looking at it for some of the ISL. Maybe SpaceX intends to use it for space-to-space links to connect to spacecraft such as Dragon?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: pyromatter on 10/28/2022 01:22 pm
What's the purpose of the V-band sats? I had expected it'd be just another band for the user terminals. But it doesn't seem so.

From the SpaceX V-band Authorization
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/31/2022 04:19 pm
Got a technical question. Is current cell size limited by antenna capabilities or is it an operational decision?


The root of the question lies in the surface drone attack in Crimea. It looks (unconfirmed) like they had StarLink antennas. AIUI, things are geofenced and there should have been no service there. Could the antennas tighten up their beam cross section and track on the receiver instead of holding to a pre defined cell?


Edit: added the word 'beam'.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/31/2022 04:34 pm
They could geofence antenna's so that only antennas they give permission to can operate in the cell (otherwise, how would you disable people who have not paid the monthly bill).

They can also turn on and off coverage at will (Enable it right before the attack, disable it when done, they had a problem earlier in the month when the Ukrainians outran the coverage zone during an offensive. They have since resolved that snafu, meaning they have direct comm on where and when to turn on and off cells).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 10/31/2022 05:45 pm
They could geofence antenna's so that only antennas they give permission to can operate in the cell (otherwise, how would you disable people who have not paid the monthly bill).

They can also turn on and off coverage at will (Enable it right before the attack, disable it when done, they had a problem earlier in the month when the Ukrainians outran the coverage zone during an offensive. They have since resolved that snafu, meaning they have direct comm on where and when to turn on and off cells).
This would work but it has weaknesses. A sat going live in a geofenced area is an announcement that excrement is about strike the turbine. They could keep them live 24/7 with phantom traffic but despite the Russian armies performance, the Russians have some top notch people. Do it a few times and sigint could twig to the real signals and know when something is up, even if they can't decipher it.


A tight custom tracking beam, if undetected, would give no heads up. How tight can they get the beam and how well can they control the side lobes? That and good choices on the footprint the sat creates could, maybe, kinda, hoppa hoppa, give a more secure approach.


The hardware/firmware set the physical limits on beam forming. I just don't know what they are.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 11/03/2022 12:10 am
The Starlink user uplink is 14.0-14.5, 47.2-50.2, and 50.4-51.4 GHz.  The antenna on the satellite is about 60 cm diameter, and it flies at 550 km altitude.  So the minimum spot size for the 14.0-14.5 GHz band is something like 24 km when looking straight down.  SpaceX filings suggest they are deliberately spreading the lobe a bit so that the spots are roughly 70 km across.

Maybe over Ukraine they're modifying the spots to make them smaller, trading away coverage to get better resistance to jamming.

Or maybe Russia just doesn't have anything that can jam a V band (those two bands above 47.2 GHz).  I've not read about any Russian equipment that transmits over 18 GHz.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 11/03/2022 03:53 pm
The Starlink user uplink is 14.0-14.5, 47.2-50.2, and 50.4-51.4 GHz.  The antenna on the satellite is about 60 cm diameter, and it flies at 550 km altitude.  So the minimum spot size for the 14.0-14.5 GHz band is something like 24 km when looking straight down.  SpaceX filings suggest they are deliberately spreading the lobe a bit so that the spots are roughly 70 km across.

Maybe over Ukraine they're modifying the spots to make them smaller, trading away coverage to get better resistance to jamming.

Or maybe Russia just doesn't have anything that can jam a V band (those two bands above 47.2 GHz).  I've not read about any Russian equipment that transmits over 18 GHz.

I don't believe V-Band is in use yet.
Not physically capable or not authorized?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: markbike528cbx on 11/03/2022 06:08 pm
The Starlink user uplink is 14.0-14.5, 47.2-50.2, and 50.4-51.4 GHz.  The antenna on the satellite is about 60 cm diameter, and it flies at 550 km altitude.  So the minimum spot size for the 14.0-14.5 GHz band is something like 24 km when looking straight down.  SpaceX filings suggest they are deliberately spreading the lobe a bit so that the spots are roughly 70 km across.

Maybe over Ukraine they're modifying the spots to make them smaller, trading away coverage to get better resistance to jamming.

Or maybe Russia just doesn't have anything that can jam a V band (those two bands above 47.2 GHz).  I've not read about any Russian equipment that transmits over 18 GHz.

I don't believe V-Band is in use yet.
Not physically capable or not authorized?

FCC-CIRC1811-04  IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20170301-00027   October 25,2018
Quote
In this Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, we grant the application of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (SpaceX)1 to construct, deploy and operate a proposed non- geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite system using frequencies in the V-band.2 ......

2 For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, we use the term “V-band” to refer to frequencies ranging from 37.5 GHz to 52.4 GHz. As noted below, the request by SpaceX for authority in the 42.0- 42.5 GHz and 51.4-52.4 GHz frequency bands is not before us, because there is no domestic allocation for satellite services in 42.0-42.5 GHz band and there is no domestic or international allocation for satellite services in the 51.4- 52.4 GHz frequency band.
.......
b. Operations in the 37.5-40.0 GHz band are unprotected with respect to the non-federal fixed and mobile services, except as authorized pursuant to 47 CFR § 25.136.
c. Operations in the 37.5-40.0 GHz band are authorized up to the power flux-density limits in 47 CFR § 25.208(r)(1). Prior to starting operation in this band, SpaceX must present the showing described in Section 25.114( c )( 8 ) to confirm compliance with these power flux- density limits.
d. Operations in the 37.5-38.0 GHz and 40.0-40.5 GHz bands must be successfully coordinated with Federal Space Research Service (SRS) facilities, pursuant to Recommendation ITU-R SA.1396, “Protection Criteria for the Space Research Service in the 37-38 GHz and 40.0-40.5 GHz Bands.”
e. Operations in the 40-42 GHz band are authorized up to the power-flux density limits in 47 CFR § 25.208(s) and (t).
f. In accordance with footnote US211 to 47 CFR § 2.106, SpaceX is urged to take all practicable steps to protect radio astronomy observations in the adjacent bands from harmful interference from its operations in the 40.5-42 GHz band.
g. Operations in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band must provide interference protection to the fixed and mobile services, except as authorized pursuant to 47 CFR § 25.136.

The grant date (Oct 25 2018?) Plus 6 years so Oct 2024,  50% of satellites must be up and operational.

And V-band is pretty highly absorbed in the atmosphere, so any long slant (off the vertical axis ) would limit footprint.
Millimeter Wave Propagation: Spectrum Management Implications FCC Bulletin Number 70 July, 1997
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 11/03/2022 07:50 pm
Okay, yeah, I agree.  So I think it just comes down to not putting their receiver spots onto potential Russian jammers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 11/05/2022 01:09 am
Fair Use Policy is up now: https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1134-82708-70

Peak hours: 7AM to 11PM, residential use outside peak hour is not counted towards soft cap.

Residential: 1TB soft cap, $0.25/GB to buy additional priority access, no throttling after priority access is used, just deprioritize.

Business/Mobile is more complicated, multiple tiers 500GB/1TB/3TB/5TB, will throttle after reach the cap to 1Mbps, $1/GB to $2/GB to buy additional priority access

Also unveiled additional add-on for purchase:
1. “Transcontinental Data”: Allows a user to access Starlink Services outside the continent of their Service address.
2. “Ocean Data”: Allows customers to access Starlink Services while at sea.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 11/05/2022 03:21 pm
Fair Use Policy is up now: https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1134-82708-70

Peak hours: 7AM to 11PM, residential use outside peak hour is not counted towards soft cap.

Residential: 1TB soft cap, $0.25/GB to buy additional priority access, no throttling after priority access is used, just deprioritize.

Business/Mobile is more complicated, multiple tiers 500GB/1TB/3TB/5TB, will throttle after reach the cap to 1Mbps, $1/GB to $2/GB to buy additional priority access

Also unveiled additional add-on for purchase:
1. “Transcontinental Data”: Allows a user to access Starlink Services outside the continent of their Service address.
2. “Ocean Data”: Allows customers to access Starlink Services while at sea.

One terabyte not counting nighttime? Yeah I'm absolutely fine with that, although I could see it hitting heavy users. But Starlink is not cable and I've never expected it to be.

That said, I'm not sure this even applies to me. I'm Best Effort, which means I'm already deprioritized all the time. And around here, it hardly makes a difference. Only time I've noticed any drop in bandwidth is watching a show during peak and sometimes seeing resolution drop to SD instead of HD -- I never even try to stream in 4K.

Edit to add: Yeah, looking at the whole form it doesn't make any difference to Best Effort. But that said, we can now check our account page and see a graph showing our daily usage broken up between Peak and off Peak usage. Much nicer than the Viasat experience, which only showed a running total.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 11/07/2022 01:08 am
Interesting post on r/starlink (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/ymm6rv/starlink_coverage_holes/) that summarized holes in Starlink coverage for protecting radio astronomy:

Quote from: /u/mfb-
The Starlink availability map has some holes where SpaceX does not expect to offer service ever. I was looking up a few of them, might as well make a list. This does not include lakes or coastal areas SpaceX counts as ocean.

US:
- VLBA antennas:
    * Owens Valley, California (Big Pine on the map)
    * Brewster , Washington
    * Fort Davis, Texas
    * Los Alamos, New Mexico, two dead cells near Santa Fe
    * North Liberty, Iowa
    * Hancock, New Hampshire (Peterborough on the map)
    * Mauna Kea, Hawaii
- National Radio Quiet Zone, Virginia/West Virginia with various telescopes (largest dead zone)
- Very Large Array, New Mexico (second largest dead zone, also includes the Pie Town VLBA antenna)
- Haystack Observatory, west of Lowell, Massachusetts
- Table Mountain Field Site and Radio Quiet Zone, 6 cells north of Denver, Colorado (thanks to /u/feral_engineer)
- One dead cell at Greenville/Salem, Pennsylvania - why?
- One dead cell north-east of Washington DC - NSA?
Kitt Peak (Arizona) and St. Croix (U.S. Virgin Islands) seem to be the only VLBA antennas that do not have a dead cell.

Canada:
- Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory, British Columbia (near Oliver on the map)

Europe:
- Effelsberg, Germany, 7 cells south of Cologne
- Wettzell, Germany, 7 cells in Bavaria
- Yebes Observatory, Spain, 5 cells east of Madrid
- Onsala Space Observatory, Sweden, 4 cells right at the coast facing Denmark (found by /u/feral_engineer)
- 5 isolated cells along the Polish border are black instead of dark blue, what's going on there?

Australia:
- Radio quiet zone in Western Australia, Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Brovane on 11/07/2022 04:59 pm
I was reading the recent article by CNN on the Starlink outage.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics/spacex-ukraine-elon-musk-starlink-internet-outage/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics/spacex-ukraine-elon-musk-starlink-internet-outage/index.html)

The outage affected a block of 1,300 terminals that Ukraine purchased from a British company in March and were used for combat-related operations. 

SpaceX was charging Ukraine’s military $2,500 a month to keep each of the 1,300 units connected


What tier for Starlink costs $2,500 a month?  Even Starlink business is $500 a month. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 11/07/2022 05:13 pm
I was reading the recent article by CNN on the Starlink outage.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics/spacex-ukraine-elon-musk-starlink-internet-outage/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics/spacex-ukraine-elon-musk-starlink-internet-outage/index.html)

The outage affected a block of 1,300 terminals that Ukraine purchased from a British company in March and were used for combat-related operations. 

SpaceX was charging Ukraine’s military $2,500 a month to keep each of the 1,300 units connected


What tier for Starlink costs $2,500 a month?  Even Starlink business is $500 a month.

Comms-on-the-move and comms-on-the-pause services cost more than fixed-location services. In the non-military world, there are technical reasons why it costs more to provide the services, but the real reason for the difference is that the service is more valuable to the customer and therefore you can charge them more.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 11/07/2022 05:58 pm
I was reading the recent article by CNN on the Starlink outage.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics/spacex-ukraine-elon-musk-starlink-internet-outage/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics/spacex-ukraine-elon-musk-starlink-internet-outage/index.html)

The outage affected a block of 1,300 terminals that Ukraine purchased from a British company in March and were used for combat-related operations. 

SpaceX was charging Ukraine’s military $2,500 a month to keep each of the 1,300 units connected


What tier for Starlink costs $2,500 a month?  Even Starlink business is $500 a month.

Comms-on-the-move and comms-on-the-pause services cost more than fixed-location services. In the non-military world, there are technical reasons why it costs more to provide the services, but the real reason for the difference is that the service is more valuable to the customer and therefore you can charge them more.
The units purchased by NGO's or governments often have contracts associated with them. Starlink is providing a higher tier or service than what is being paid for, and then complaining of unpaid bills. This is a blatant attempt to double dip on payments and force governments to pay more.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 11/07/2022 06:31 pm
I was reading the recent article by CNN on the Starlink outage.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics/spacex-ukraine-elon-musk-starlink-internet-outage/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics/spacex-ukraine-elon-musk-starlink-internet-outage/index.html)

The outage affected a block of 1,300 terminals that Ukraine purchased from a British company in March and were used for combat-related operations. 

SpaceX was charging Ukraine’s military $2,500 a month to keep each of the 1,300 units connected


What tier for Starlink costs $2,500 a month?  Even Starlink business is $500 a month.

Comms-on-the-move and comms-on-the-pause services cost more than fixed-location services. In the non-military world, there are technical reasons why it costs more to provide the services, but the real reason for the difference is that the service is more valuable to the customer and therefore you can charge them more.
The units purchased by NGO's or governments often have contracts associated with them. Starlink is providing a higher tier or service than what is being paid for, and then complaining of unpaid bills. This is a blatant attempt to double dip on payments and force governments to pay more.
I have not read the contracts, so I do not know the specifics. Do you?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/07/2022 07:10 pm
Nope, he made it up.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 11/07/2022 08:15 pm
I was reading the recent article by CNN on the Starlink outage.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics/spacex-ukraine-elon-musk-starlink-internet-outage/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics/spacex-ukraine-elon-musk-starlink-internet-outage/index.html)

The outage affected a block of 1,300 terminals that Ukraine purchased from a British company in March and were used for combat-related operations. 

SpaceX was charging Ukraine’s military $2,500 a month to keep each of the 1,300 units connected


What tier for Starlink costs $2,500 a month?  Even Starlink business is $500 a month.

Comms-on-the-move and comms-on-the-pause services cost more than fixed-location services. In the non-military world, there are technical reasons why it costs more to provide the services, but the real reason for the difference is that the service is more valuable to the customer and therefore you can charge them more.
The units purchased by NGO's or governments often have contracts associated with them. Starlink is providing a higher tier or service than what is being paid for, and then complaining of unpaid bills. This is a blatant attempt to double dip on payments and force governments to pay more.
I have not read the contracts, so I do not know the specifics. Do you?
When this issue came up a couple weeks ago, musk said that they were giving free service to everyone. It was later stated by many NGOs and governments that subscriptions were being paid for at a lower tier. Starlink had been providing higher service and was claiming no one was paying.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 11/07/2022 08:15 pm
Nope, he made it up.
Errr... try reading up thread about stories which detail this. However, it insults the god king who actually lies quite a bit, so you probably won't.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Brovane on 11/07/2022 11:26 pm

When this issue came up a couple weeks ago, musk said that they were giving free service to everyone. It was later stated by many NGOs and governments that subscriptions were being paid for at a lower tier. Starlink had been providing higher service and was claiming no one was paying.

What specific tier did they pay for?  Where the accounts on business tiers?  Does the standard business tier of Starlink service allow communication on the move? 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/08/2022 12:48 am
Nope, he made it up.
Errr... try reading up thread about stories which detail this. However, it insults the god king who actually lies quite a bit, so you probably won't.
You mixed some relatively true background info with stuff you made up but sounds good. Then conveniently pull the bullying "weird nerds" defense that works so well on Twitter when someone challenged you on it. Won't work here, sorry.



When this issue came up a couple weeks ago, musk said that they were giving free service to everyone. It was later stated by many NGOs and governments that subscriptions were being paid for at a lower tier. Starlink had been providing higher service and was claiming no one was paying.

What specific tier did they pay for?  Where the accounts on business tiers? ...
He has no idea about these questions. He just kind of made up the claim.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 11/10/2022 02:49 pm
https://twitter.com/Patrick_Colqu/status/1590581114674221057

Quote
Starlink V2 satellites were spotted in the Payload Integration Building, Ship received its Starlink payload dispenser, and Ship 28 was moved and lifted onto Suborbital Pad B.

Video by @chrisk_91, @NicAnsuini, and the Starbase Live Robots.

📺:youtube.com/watch?v=lZ02CSXVNFg

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: steveleach on 11/10/2022 10:23 pm
https://twitter.com/Patrick_Colqu/status/1590581114674221057

Quote
Starlink V2 satellites were spotted in the Payload Integration Building, Ship received its Starlink payload dispenser, and Ship 28 was moved and lifted onto Suborbital Pad B.

Video by @chrisk_91, @NicAnsuini, and the Starbase Live Robots.

Is it normal for communications satellites to just sit in a shed with an open door like that?

I thought they were all (historically) built, stored and transported in clean room environments.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 11/11/2022 01:39 am

Is it normal for communications satellites to just sit in a shed with an open door like that?

I thought they were all (historically) built, stored and transported in clean room environments.

You are correct, in so much that industry standards by established companies don't tolerate open sheds.

These are Gen2 prototypes though, so they may be pushing their luck a bit, but in general SpaceX has not been doing "normal" "oldspace" things to begin with.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/11/2022 04:10 am
If you look through the historical section, you'll find some references to  DSP satellites (IR missile warning satellites) being stored on a loading dock back in the 1980's. They where built in batches and ived longer than expected. The replacements while waiting to be launched where stored outside of a cleanroom.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: steveleach on 11/11/2022 05:02 pm
So this is unusual (for the industry) but not unprecedented, and not that surprising for SpaceX who have a history of going their own way.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: raptorx2 on 11/14/2022 08:22 pm
Direct to handset question.  Sorry if this has already been asked. Could Starlink deploy 1.9Ghz (TMobile) RO payloads on V1.5 (v1.6) satellites without FCC licensing for on-orbit testing purposes?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/15/2022 12:23 am
Testing on an actual satellite in orbit requires a license.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/15/2022 01:13 am
Testing on an actual satellite in orbit requires a license.
Very true, but an experimental license is much easier to obtain.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 11/15/2022 01:24 am
Testing on an actual satellite in orbit requires a license.
Very true, but an experimental license is much easier to obtain.

And the license/permit doesn't have to come from FCC, they can get it from another country if they limit testing to that country.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 11/21/2022 01:26 am
https://twitter.com/VirtuallyNathan/status/1594359493332455425

Quote
SpaceX is hiring engineers to work on v2.0 solar panel production using teamtechnik Stringer Systems -- the TT2100: https://teamtechnik.com/en/new-energy/stringer-systems/solar-stringer-tt2100-i8 A single system can build 72.5MW-peak per year.


Job posting: https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/6463104002

Quote
SOLAR STRINGER MACHINE SPECIALIST

Working for the Starlink Solar 2.0 team, the Solar Stringer Machine Specialist will be responsible for overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) of all Team Technik 2100 solar stringer machines (TTs). This includes building, installing, commissioning, troubleshooting, and maintaining all TT stringer assets. This specialist is expected to become the subject matter expert on the machines and showcase ownership over their operations.

RESPONSIBILITIES:

Responsible for the production outcome of the Starlink solar stringer machines as measured by equipment OEE
Work with production team to develop training plans and standard work instructions for TT stringer operations
Develop and implement robust preventative maintenance schedule with focus on increasing long term machine reliability as measured by machine uptime
Develop new and improve design on existing production assets to improve robustness and ease operations
Commission new stringer assets, effective project management skills to drive efficient project completion
Promote 5S principles of organizing and sustaining efficient and presentable team work spaces
Read, understand and utilize system-level schematics and drawings (mechanical/electrical/pneumatic)
Support production devices (HMIs, VM’s, etc)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 11/21/2022 01:30 am
https://twitter.com/VirtuallyNathan/status/1594358497076219904

Quote
SpaceX is hiring engineers to build their own Traveling Wave Tube Amplifiers -- these are expected to be used on v4 Gateway antennas for E-Band connectivity
@mikepuchol @Megaconstellati


Job posting: https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/6425949002

Quote
RF ENGINEER, VACUUM ELECTRONICS (STARLINK)

Starlink provides high-speed internet planetwide with the world's largest constellation of satellites and our global ground network. Our team develops the RF devices that power the satellites and ground antennas - from power amplifiers to waveguide components to reflectors. To enable current and next generation Starlink satellites and gateways, we are developing traveling wave tube amplifiers for high bandwidth communications systems. These devices are being designed for in house manufacturing at a scale significantly higher than typical industry. Want to help build the next era of Internet?

We are looking for creative and driven engineers to develop vacuum electron devices for the next generation Starlink ground antennas. As an RF engineer, you will design, simulate, and test millimeter-wave amplifiers in a cross-functional team with exceptional mechanical, electrical, RF, and software engineers.

Engineers on this team are curious, love to innovate, and excel in dynamic cross-functional teams.

RESPONSIBILITIES:

Develop millimeter-wave traveling wave tube amplifier (TWTA) covering every aspect from component to system level - electron gun, slow-wave structure, magnetic confinement circuit, collector
Use simulation tools to accelerate hardware development
Assist in development of test equipment to characterize development hardware and screen production hardware
Achieve great systems solutions through collaboration with engineers owning high-voltage power supply, waveguide networks, modem, antennas, and software
Collaborate with production engineers to bring your designs into production


Note Traveling-Wave Tube Amplifier (TWTA) was first mentioned in a reddit leak in July: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55795.msg2387898#msg2387898
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 11/21/2022 02:47 am
New study highlights need for better space weather observations and forecasts for the emerging commercial spacecraft industry (https://www.weather.gov/news/111522-starlink)

Quote from: NOAA
A new study in Space Weather, a journal published by the American Geophysical Union, provides an analysis of space weather conditions that led to the Starlink satellite loss. Scientists from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado at Boulder worked closely with SpaceX Starlink to co-author this study. They used observations from the Starlink satellites and forecasts and numerical simulations from NOAA to demonstrate the disturbance in the upper atmosphere and enhanced satellite drag conditions during the February event. This study confirms SpaceX’s preliminary analysis: high satellite drag conditions reduced satellite stability and made the orbit-raising process impossible. In response, the satellites quickly deorbited and ultimately burned up during reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere.



The paper: Space Weather Environment During the SpaceX Starlink Satellite Loss in February 2022 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2022SW003193?utm_campaign=R3MR425&utm_medium=paidsearch&utm_content=Chemistry&utm_source=google)

Quote from: Abstract
On 3 February 2022, SpaceX Starlink launched and subsequently lost 38 of 49 satellites due to enhanced neutral density associated with a geomagnetic storm. This study examines the space weather conditions related to the satellite loss, based on observations, forecasts, and numerical simulations from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC). Working closely with the Starlink team, the thermospheric densities along the satellite orbits were estimated and the neutral density increase leading to the satellite loss was investigated. Simulation results suggest that during the geomagnetic storm, pre-launch Monte Carlo analyses performed by the Starlink team using empirical neutral density inputs from NRLMSISE-00 tended to underestimate the impact relative to predictions from the operational coupled Whole Atmosphere Model and Ionosphere Plasmasphere Electrodynamics physics-based model. The numerical simulation indicated this minor to moderate geomagnetic storm was sufficient to create 50%–125% density enhancement at altitudes ranging between 200 and 400 km. With the increasing solar activity of Solar Cycle 25, satellites in low-Earth orbit are expected to experience an increasing number of thermospheric expansion events. Currently, no alerts and warnings issued by SWPC are focused on satellite users concerned with atmospheric drag and related applications. Thus, during geomagnetic storms, it is crucial to establish suitable alerts and warnings based on neutral density predictions to provide users guidance for preventing satellite losses due to drag and to aid in collision avoidance calculations.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 11/23/2022 12:46 pm
According to reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/z0xjoi/ipv6_rollout_seems_to_have_started_over_the_past/), it looks like Starlink is starting to roll out IPv6:

Quote from: r/certuna
There have been occasional reports over the past months of small-scale testing, but over the past week the Starlink network (https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS14593) has jumped from near-zero to over 10% IPv6 capable - clearly something new has been switched on.

Good news for all of you that do not enjoy life behind CG-NAT.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 11/23/2022 04:43 pm
According to reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/z0xjoi/ipv6_rollout_seems_to_have_started_over_the_past/), it looks like Starlink is starting to roll out IPv6:

Quote from: r/certuna
There have been occasional reports over the past months of small-scale testing, but over the past week the Starlink network (https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS14593) has jumped from near-zero to over 10% IPv6 capable - clearly something new has been switched on.

Good news for all of you that do not enjoy life behind CG-NAT.

As best I can tell from user reports, It's just Seattle right now. Previously it was available briefly in Atlanta. Hopefully they do a wild rollout soon!

Can somebody give me a baby talk explanation of the benefits here? I'm not very well versed in network jargon, and I honestly don't understand why I should not be enjoying my life behind CG-NAT (it seems fine right now).

Is this something that has big benefits for residential users, or is it more a business use thing?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/23/2022 09:56 pm
One of the issues I've seen in a few reviews on in the past is with NAT appears to various streaming services to show the IP address of the ground station not Dishy. Streaming services often map those addresses to a rough physical location, and may block services if things like billing address do not add up with your location.

For instance if you are located in Florida and the ground station the satellite talks to is in Atlanta, to the streaming service you are in Atlanta and not Florida. This can cause issues with the streaming service. That was an actual issue for one Starlink user who posted a long YouTube on the issue that I cannot quickly put my fingers on for a link.

Edit: Try this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9FIfCs1-Bk&ab_channel=JCristina


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: tbellman on 11/23/2022 10:36 pm
Can somebody give me a baby talk explanation of the benefits here? I'm not very well versed in network jargon, and I honestly don't understand why I should not be enjoying my life behind CG-NAT (it seems fine right now).

Is this something that has big benefits for residential users, or is it more a business use thing?

The "old" version of IP, version 4 ("IPv4"), has a limited number of addresses it can use for addressing devices.  You may have seen numeric IP addresses consisting of four numbers with periods between them looking like e.g. 198.51.100.17; these are what is really behind domain names like "forum.nasaspaceflight.com".  There are only about four billion addresses in IPv4, and for various reasons, not all of them can be used as device addresses, and due to even more reasons, there will be significant swathes of addresses that will be unused.  So perhaps one, or maybe two, billion devices can be addressed.

But there are significantly more devices than that connected to the Internet.  To handle this, people employ Network Address Translation, NAT.  This puts a special device (a "NAT gateway") in front of a bunch of devices, and pretends all of them have the same IP address.  On the inside of the NAT gateway, the devices will have "private" addresses, which are then translated to the single public address by the NAT gateway when the devices talk to the rest of the Internet.  Those private addresses are not globally unique; there will be many devices in the world with the same private address.

If you have a home router, then this almost certainly performs the duties of a NAT gateway as well.  CG-NAT is Carrier Grade NAT, and long story short, this is when your ISP performs NAT for you.  They may have hundreds or thousands of public addresses, used to cover tens of thousands of customers.  (Since you are likely doing NAT yourself in your home router as well, this means there will be two layers of address translation between your device and the global Internet.)

The problem is that, since devices then don't have unique addresses, those devices can't contact each other directly.  This is similar to how some decades ago, a company might have more phones than they had phone numbers.  You could then not call a specific person inside that company directly, but instead had to call the company's switchboard and ask to be connected to "extension 4711".  (And then there was often a limit on how many people in the company could actually be talking on their phones at the same time.)

Since NAT has been prevalent for a couple of decades by now, everyone developing applications using the Internet, have of course made sure that their applications work when NAT and CG-NAT are employed.  Often by having a server with a public address (i.e, not behind NAT) acting as a go-between between end-user devices.

However, these NAT gateways need to be somewhat complicated, and at the scale that an ISP operates, they become somewhat expensive as well.

And there are some things that simply can't be done when you are behind a NAT gateway.  You can't set up an email server or a web server at home, for example.  And several applications become more complicated due to the need for "go-between" servers.



The "new" version of IP, version 6 ("IPv6", which is actually more than 25 years old by now), solves this by having a much larger address space.  IPv6 can easily address a quintillion (a billion billion) individual devices.  (There are actually more than three hundred billion octillion, 3×1038, IPv6 addresses, but in practice only a very tiny fraction of them can be effectively used; still many many more than in IPv4.)

For now, most normal people will not notice anything being better with IPv6 than with IPv4.  There are some services that are only available over IPv6, but, at least in the USA, those are pretty niche.  But things are changing.  I believe India and China have a fair number of services that are only on IPv6.  And even in the USA and Europe, companies have some difficulty getting public IPv4 addresses, which may mean that they will soon need to deploy some services as IPv6-only.  (I have heard of some that have "internal" services only on IPv6, so if their employees want to work from home, they need IPv6 at home.)


EDIT to add: I was reminded of one problem that can actually affect even the most ordinary of ordinary users for IPv4.  Due to the shortage of IPv4 addresses, ISPs often need to buy address blocks (by the hundreds or thousands) from others that got those blocks earlier when there was less or no shortage.  But those "pre-owned" blocks may have been owned by less scrupulous actors that didn't police their users well, or even actively used them for sending spam or other nefarious objectives.  Those addresses can then end up on lists of "bad" addresses, and some people or organizations will refuse to talk to anyone using those "bad" addresses.  And it can take some time and lots of effort for the new owner to clear the reputation of the address block, and in the meantime the new owner's users suffer.

Or the ISP may buy address blocks where the previous owner was in some other part of the world, and geolocation services (that tries to associate specific IP addresses with geographic locations) have registered those addresses as being in outer Mongolia.  As with reputation, it can require quite a lot of effort from the ISP to get all geolocation services to understand that those addresses are now for users in Pitcairn instead of Mongolia, and in the meantime, Netflix, Disney+, et.c. will refuse to serve the ISP's users, and Google will insist on presenting their pages in a language not understandable to you.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DigitalMan on 11/23/2022 11:26 pm
Yea, there are a bunch of people on reddit that talk about wanting to set up servers and are looking for IPv6 to enable them.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 11/24/2022 06:12 pm
Thanks for the explanations guys. That makes it a lot clearer.

As a note, my previous satellite provider (Viasat) also tended to give me locations based on where I presume the downlink stations were, so I presume the issue isn't limited to Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 11/24/2022 11:22 pm
I wonder what kind of geomapping/IPv6 address assignment will be done for fixed site Starlinks? Setting a /32 per cell seems reasonable...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/30/2022 01:57 pm
Hyperbole. I would be surprised if it’s profitable to make the dishes even at $700.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Ghoti on 11/30/2022 02:00 pm
Hyperbole. I would be surprised if it’s profitable to make the dishes even at $700.
Since it is likely a large percentage of dishes are being purchased via government and third party donations it makes less sense to subsidize their sale.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 11/30/2022 02:32 pm
Hyperbole. I would be surprised if it’s profitable to make the dishes even at $700.
Its only happening in the ONE country, which can be inconvenient to certain narratives.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/30/2022 02:34 pm
Considering with all the damage to infrastructure, it seems that the amount of bandwidth used per dish is also higher compared to other markets where multiple people are not sharing the same dish. Justifying the monthly fee going from $60 a month to $75 a month in the market.

I still wonder if they are using ISL to provide better coverage in Eastern Ukraine. It does seem a stretch for the ground stations in Poland and Turkey.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: mn on 11/30/2022 03:03 pm
Companies will typically subsidize upfront costs, banking on a long term return.

Considering that these are short term accounts, with most of them likely to stop paying soon after the war ends it's not unreasonable to want to get your money upfront. (Exactly how to do that fairly is more complicated).

How long do they need an account to be active to recover the upfront costs?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 11/30/2022 03:35 pm
Companies will typically subsidize upfront costs, banking on a long term return.

Considering that these are short term accounts, with most of them likely to stop paying soon after the war ends it's not unreasonable to want to get your money upfront. (Exactly how to do that fairly is more complicated).

How long do they need an account to be active to recover the upfront costs?
Why are you apologizing for this? If comcast was doing this in ukraine, everyone would be grabbing their pitchforks. The entire mood of this conversation is different because the richest human to EVER exist runs a very successful popularity campaign, and makes himself the public face of this company.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 11/30/2022 03:41 pm
Companies will typically subsidize upfront costs, banking on a long term return.

Considering that these are short term accounts, with most of them likely to stop paying soon after the war ends it's not unreasonable to want to get your money upfront. (Exactly how to do that fairly is more complicated).

How long do they need an account to be active to recover the upfront costs?
Why are you apologizing for this? If comcast was doing this in ukraine, everyone would be grabbing their pitchforks. The entire mood of this conversation is different because the richest human to EVER exist runs a very successful popularity campaign, and makes himself the public face of this company.

Please just stop. Do you have to engage in this effort on every thread, only to result in deleted posts?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/30/2022 04:09 pm
Hyperbole. I would be surprised if it’s profitable to make the dishes even at $700.
Its only happening in the ONE country, which can be inconvenient to certain narratives.
One country which is much more likely to get stuff blown up randomly (and thus less likely for its subsidized cost to be recouped in monthly payments). Including communications infrastructure like dishes. But please, it’s tiring to see your one-man crusade against E on this site. Your opinion and updates are welcome, but weird attacks against those who disagree are not.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 11/30/2022 05:05 pm
Companies will typically subsidize upfront costs, banking on a long term return.

Considering that these are short term accounts, with most of them likely to stop paying soon after the war ends it's not unreasonable to want to get your money upfront. (Exactly how to do that fairly is more complicated).

How long do they need an account to be active to recover the upfront costs?
Why are you apologizing for this? If comcast was doing this in ukraine, everyone would be grabbing their pitchforks. The entire mood of this conversation is different because the richest human to EVER exist runs a very successful popularity campaign, and makes himself the public face of this company.

Please just stop. Do you have to engage in this effort on every thread, only to result in deleted posts?
I see that attacking the poster instead of addressing the issue is your only response.  I would ask the same. Justify your position instead of just ignoring and attacking.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/30/2022 05:29 pm
Most of the US East Coast is wait listed because demand exceeds capacity. Considering how popular Starlink is in the Ukraine they might be getting close to max capacity. ISL handwaving aside, as far as I can tell, the entire country's traffic goes through the two ground stations in Poland and Turkey. In comparison, waitlisted New England traffic has four optimally placed ground stations in NY,VT,ME, and CT.

In the demand case, it would make sense to pull the raising the hardware price lever to slow new adoption of a finite resource. The backlash would be  less than wait listing an entire country.

 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: r8ix on 11/30/2022 05:59 pm
Companies will typically subsidize upfront costs, banking on a long term return.

Considering that these are short term accounts, with most of them likely to stop paying soon after the war ends it's not unreasonable to want to get your money upfront. (Exactly how to do that fairly is more complicated).

How long do they need an account to be active to recover the upfront costs?
Why are you apologizing for this? If comcast was doing this in ukraine, everyone would be grabbing their pitchforks. The entire mood of this conversation is different because the richest human to EVER exist runs a very successful popularity campaign, and makes himself the public face of this company.

Please just stop. Do you have to engage in this effort on every thread, only to result in deleted posts?
I see that attacking the poster instead of addressing the issue is your only response.  I would ask the same. Justify your position instead of just ignoring and attacking.

The issue was already addressed, and you attacked the person who did so.

How many other companies are doing anything, at any price, aside from military equipment?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 11/30/2022 07:39 pm
Most of the US East Coast is wait listed because demand exceeds capacity. Considering how popular Starlink is in the Ukraine they might be getting close to max capacity. ISL handwaving aside, as far as I can tell, the entire country's traffic goes through the two ground stations in Poland and Turkey. In comparison, waitlisted New England traffic has four optimally placed ground stations in NY,VT,ME, and CT.

In the demand case, it would make sense to pull the raising the hardware price lever to slow new adoption of a finite resource. The backlash would be  less than wait listing an entire country.

 

Starlink isn't built to service many customers in a small geographic area (like you find on the east coast of the US).   There are a lot of areas that have all the customers that starlink can handle.   These are the areas wait listed.

On the other hand, there are many rural areas that  are not fully subscribed.   This is true all over the world.

I don't think that ground station capacity will ever be the limiting factor for customers, except perhaps in very odd corner cases.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/30/2022 08:14 pm
https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1598062565107507200

Quote
Starlink appears to be down, and been down for ~15 minutes now. From some quick searches, it appears to be a global outage🤔

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/downdetector/status/1598059648124436484

Quote
User reports indicate Starlink is having problems since 4:01 PM EST. http://downdetector.com/status/starlink/ RT if you're also having problems #starlinkdown
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/30/2022 08:29 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1598066524736159746

Quote
And a number of users reporting Starlink is back up, looks like the outage was 10-20 min for most
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 11/30/2022 10:14 pm
And of course I was mucking about with my home network when Starlink went down, and assumed I had horked something up. By the time I had finished "troubleshooting" and was just starting to hook up my backup it was back again.

Not happy about it, but it was the first substantial outage I've had with the service.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/01/2022 08:33 pm
Gen 2 partially approved by the FCC

https://twitter.com/JRyanThomp/status/1598411233480380416

Let the partying begin!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/01/2022 08:38 pm
Musk Doubles starlink prices in Ukraine.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/11/starlink-prices-in-ukraine-nearly-double-as-mobile-networks-falter/

Doubles price of the dishes, increases the monthly fee by 25%.

And to give the proper context, according to the article: "The consumer cost of the monthly subscription to Starlink has fluctuated recently, dropping from about $100 to $60 on Ukraine’s Independence day on August 24 to “reflect local market conditions,” and will now rise to $75."

So it's still cheaper than before and cheaper than US.
That’s a significantly different story than it first appeared when posted here, so I appreciate that you highlighted this. Starlink service costs $110/month in the US, so SpaceX still giving them a significant discount.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/01/2022 08:40 pm
So, which shell will they fill first?

525km 53 degree
530km 43 degree
535km 33 degree

Personally, I think they would get the most bang for the buck filling 535km 43 degree first. That provides the most coverage in Eastern US areas that are wait listed. It covers NYC and all areas further south.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/01/2022 08:45 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1598432795621195776

Quote
The FCC has granted partial approval to SpaceX for Starling Gen2, allowing it to deploy up to 7,500 satellites (of requested 29,988). “We defer action on the remainder of SpaceX’s application at this time.” https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-91A1.pdf
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/02/2022 05:12 am
Regarding Gen 2 partial approval, does the following back of the envelope calculation hold water?

~3000 Gen 1 sats currently allow for ~1M subscribers, therefore ~ $1B annual revenue.

7500 Gen2 sats is 2.5 times the Gen 1 number, and each sat conservatively has 5 times the Gen 1 capacity. So that gives you a ~10M subscriber capacity and therefore ~$10B annual revenue.

That’s without further approval for the full 29k constellation.

That about right?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 12/02/2022 06:17 am
Regarding Gen 2 partial approval, does the following back of the envelope calculation hold water?

~3000 Gen 1 sats currently allow for ~1M subscribers, therefore ~ $1B annual revenue.

7500 Gen2 sats is 2.5 times the Gen 1 number, and each sat conservatively has 5 times the Gen 1 capacity. So that gives you a ~10M subscriber capacity and therefore ~$10B annual revenue.

That’s without further approval for the full 29k constellation.

That about right?

I am suspicious of that logic.

Any increase in capacity occurs over wide areas of the globe (uniformly by latitude if you want to model in detail).  Demand is not distributed in the same way.  Most of the world is far below average demand density, increase supply in areas where demand is saturated will not increase the number of customers.  So total number of customers should be sublinear with available supply.  How far sublinear and when this becomes important would require detailed modeling.

Currently most of the world is not wait listed (https://www.starlink.com/map), so not capacity limited.  So increased capacity can only increase the number of customers in the eastern US, Onterio and possibly Ukraine.  In most of the world extra supply will make no difference, at least in the short term,



Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 12/02/2022 07:13 am
Regarding Gen 2 partial approval, does the following back of the envelope calculation hold water?

~3000 Gen 1 sats currently allow for ~1M subscribers, therefore ~ $1B annual revenue.

7500 Gen2 sats is 2.5 times the Gen 1 number, and each sat conservatively has 5 times the Gen 1 capacity. So that gives you a ~10M subscriber capacity and therefore ~$10B annual revenue.

That’s without further approval for the full 29k constellation.

That about right?

I am suspicious of that logic.

Any increase in capacity occurs over wide areas of the globe (uniformly by latitude if you want to model in detail).  Demand is not distributed in the same way.  Most of the world is far below average demand density, increase supply in areas where demand is saturated will not increase the number of customers.  So total number of customers should be sublinear with available supply.  How far sublinear and when this becomes important would require detailed modeling.

Currently most of the world is not wait listed (https://www.starlink.com/map), so not capacity limited.  So increased capacity can only increase the number of customers in the eastern US, Onterio and possibly Ukraine.  In most of the world extra supply will make no difference, at least in the short term,

The new approval will greatly relieve capacity issues because both Gen 1 and Gen 2 are now allowed to send one beam each per cell, doubling radio capacity.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/02/2022 02:29 pm
Musk Doubles starlink prices in Ukraine.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/11/starlink-prices-in-ukraine-nearly-double-as-mobile-networks-falter/

Doubles price of the dishes, increases the monthly fee by 25%.

And to give the proper context, according to the article: "The consumer cost of the monthly subscription to Starlink has fluctuated recently, dropping from about $100 to $60 on Ukraine’s Independence day on August 24 to “reflect local market conditions,” and will now rise to $75."

So it's still cheaper than before and cheaper than US.
Didn't you try to establish this as an updates only thread? Why are you posting your opinions of the news article here?
It’s literally just an informative quote from the article and current price in the US? Where’s the opinion? It’s more informative and contextual than the headline, which is misleading without this context. Why’d you post this gripe in the Updates thread?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 12/02/2022 04:25 pm
Regarding Gen 2 partial approval, does the following back of the envelope calculation hold water?

~3000 Gen 1 sats currently allow for ~1M subscribers, therefore ~ $1B annual revenue.

7500 Gen2 sats is 2.5 times the Gen 1 number, and each sat conservatively has 5 times the Gen 1 capacity. So that gives you a ~10M subscriber capacity and therefore ~$10B annual revenue.

That’s without further approval for the full 29k constellation.

That about right?

I am suspicious of that logic.

Any increase in capacity occurs over wide areas of the globe (uniformly by latitude if you want to model in detail).  Demand is not distributed in the same way.  Most of the world is far below average demand density, increase supply in areas where demand is saturated will not increase the number of customers.  So total number of customers should be sublinear with available supply.  How far sublinear and when this becomes important would require detailed modeling.

Currently most of the world is not wait listed (https://www.starlink.com/map), so not capacity limited.  So increased capacity can only increase the number of customers in the eastern US, Onterio and possibly Ukraine.  In most of the world extra supply will make no difference, at least in the short term,

The new approval will greatly relieve capacity issues because both Gen 1 and Gen 2 are now allowed to send one beam each per cell, doubling radio capacity.
Which is completely irrelevent to the point I made.  Where sales are demand limited increasing supply does not help.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/05/2022 05:52 am
https://twitter.com/sawyermerritt/status/1599622471560220673

Quote
Here is @SpaceX’s Starlink giving ice research team @COLDEX_STC uninterrupted connectivity in the field in Antarctica for the first time ever, despite -20°C temps (not including wind chill) and 35MPH winds.

Starlink is a game changer. @elonmusk

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1599623687908401153

Quote
Starlink works in even the most remote regions of Antarctica
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Rondaz on 12/14/2022 06:41 pm
Starlink will provide high-speed internet to the @MuscowpetungRez in Saskatchewan, Canada starting next year..

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1603103156530921472
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gongora on 12/16/2022 07:52 pm
This really isn't a thread for discussing how Elon runs Twitter.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 12/17/2022 10:05 am
So, is 5-1 polar corridor according to the original V1.5 filing or is it a different inclination?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: AmigaClone on 12/17/2022 01:16 pm
So, is 5-1 polar corridor according to the original V1.5 filing or is it a different inclination?

All documentation I have seen indicates that Group 5 shares the same altitude and inclination as Group 3. The difference between the two groups is that the later is comprised of 6 planes with 58 satellites each while the former has 4 planes of 43 satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 12/17/2022 04:37 pm
So, is 5-1 polar corridor according to the original V1.5 filing or is it a different inclination?

All documentation I have seen indicates that Group 5 shares the same altitude and inclination as Group 3. The difference between the two groups is that the later is comprised of 6 planes with 58 satellites each while the former has 4 planes of 43 satellites.

According to Alex though it's not a polar launch. It's 53 degree inclination due to barge placement.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57553.msg2441951#msg2441951
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/19/2022 03:16 pm
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1604872936976154624

Quote
Starlink now has more than 1,000,000 active subscribers – thank you to all customers and members of the Starlink team who contributed to this milestone ❤️💫🌎 starlink.com
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/19/2022 03:57 pm
1 million is roughly the threshold to self-sustainability (especially as many are RV or maritime users). If they kept it operating and extended the life of the satellites, they could probably keep it profitable at near the current level.

Of course, they need to do V2 and Starship to grow.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 12/19/2022 04:09 pm


Quote
Starlink now has more than 1,000,000 active subscribers – thank you to all customers and members of the Starlink team who contributed to this milestone ❤️💫🌎 starlink.com

Estimate the monthly ongoing revenue as $100 per subscriber -- as some starlink services cost more than this, and some pay less,

This means Starlink is generating something like 1.2 Billion dollars per year.

This is probably still a little bit below their annual costs for building, launching and operating sats, building terminals, and developing/building/testing starship.    Probably not too far way though.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/19/2022 04:18 pm


Quote
Starlink now has more than 1,000,000 active subscribers – thank you to all customers and members of the Starlink team who contributed to this milestone ❤️💫🌎 starlink.com

Estimate the monthly ongoing revenue as $100 per subscriber -- as some starlink services cost more than this, and some pay less,

This means Starlink is generating something like 1.2 Billion dollars per year.

This is probably still a little bit below their annual costs for building, launching and operating sats, building terminals, and developing/building/testing starship.    Probably not too far way though.
In the US, it’s $110/month. They’re being most aggressive with their upsold services to business, mobile, RV, and maritime users, and that could significantly increase the average revenue, especially if Starlink v2 was delayed and they had to maximize use of the V1 constellation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/20/2022 12:20 am
1 million is roughly the threshold to self-sustainability (especially as many are RV or maritime users). If they kept it operating and extended the life of the satellites, they could probably keep it profitable at near the current level.

Of course, they need to do V2 and Starship to grow.

So, interesting. The launch cost of the current 3500 satellites (assuming $25M F9 all inclusive internal launch cost and 55 satellites per launch) is ~$1.5B.

I seem to recall build cost per Gen1 satellite was around $250k, but not sure if I misremember that. So for 3500 satellites, lets call that $1B manufacturing cost.

So the launch and build cost of the current constellation was around $2.5B then.

Assuming a subsidy cost of $1000 per user terminal, that’s another billion dollars for the current 1 million subscribers, so we get to about $3.5B launch, build and terminal subsidy cost for the current network.

With annual revenue at $1B, so $5B over the 5 year satellite lifespan.

An obvious efficiency improvement that jumps out at me, is if they can extend the lifespan of each satellite to say 10 years. That would halve the launch and build cost, while keeping revenue the same. Instantly transforming the business model.

So I can’t quite recall - was the 5 year satellite lifespan a hard limit? Was it the orbital decay period without any station keeping? Could the Gen 2 satellites have extra fuel to extend the lifespan to say double the original 5 years?

That would vastly improve Starlink’s profitability.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/20/2022 12:39 am
1 million is roughly the threshold to self-sustainability (especially as many are RV or maritime users). If they kept it operating and extended the life of the satellites, they could probably keep it profitable at near the current level.

Of course, they need to do V2 and Starship to grow.

So, interesting. The launch cost of the current 3500 satellites (assuming $25M F9 all inclusive internal launch cost and 55 satellites per launch) is ~$1.5B.

I seem to recall build cost per Gen1 satellite was around $250k, but not sure if I misremember that. So for 3500 satellites, lets call that $1B manufacturing cost.

So the launch and build cost of the current constellation was around $2.5B then.

Assuming a subsidy cost of $1000 per user terminal, that’s another billion dollars for the current 1 million subscribers, so we get to about $3.5B launch, build and terminal subsidy cost for the current network.

With annual revenue at $1B, so $5B over the 5 year satellite lifespan.

An obvious efficiency improvement that jumps out at me, is if they can extend the lifespan of each satellite to say 10 years. That would halve the launch and build cost, while keeping revenue the same. Instantly transforming the business model.

So I can’t quite recall - was the 5 year satellite lifespan a hard limit? Was it the orbital decay period without any station keeping? Could the Gen 2 satellites have extra fuel to extend the lifespan to say double the original 5 years?

That would vastly improve Starlink’s profitability.
Or keep launch rate and build rate the same but double the number of satellites in orbit and number of end-users.

I think extending the life to around 10 years could make sense eventually, but not until they've reached a sort of optimum in the satellite design and operations. In an alternate timeline without Starship, that could happen with Gen2s launched on F9 (which may launch by end of this year, FWIW).



I can imagine a huge Gen3 version that's launched on Starship and is actually big enough to be worth servicing (either in-situ or captured and returned to Earth for servicing). That would solve several problems at once. But only works for very large satellites and if Starship works really well.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/20/2022 04:16 am
<snip>
I can imagine a huge Gen3 version that's launched on Starship and is actually big enough to be worth servicing (either in-situ or captured and returned to Earth for servicing). That would solve several problems at once. But only works for very large satellites and if Starship works really well.
You are not imagining hard enough. Some variant of the Starship could be the huge Skynet Starlink orbital platform.  :P
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: tbellman on 12/20/2022 12:10 pm
So I can’t quite recall - was the 5 year satellite lifespan a hard limit? Was it the orbital decay period without any station keeping? Could the Gen 2 satellites have extra fuel to extend the lifespan to say double the original 5 years?

It's based on the expected economical lifespan of the satellites, i.e, how long until they are outdated and no longer worth operating.  And that in turn is based on their designed bandwidth capacity, which has been designed for replacement (and thus upgrade) after ca 5 years.

The satellites are built with a certain maximum bandwidth capacity, both per customer (terminal) and aggregated for the entire satellite.  Will that capacity be enough to satisfy customers in 2030?  SpaceX designed their system on the assumption that it would be cheaper to build satellites that would have an economical lifetime of five years, and replace them every five years, than to build them to have an economical lifetime of ten years.  The latter would require them to have a significant overcapacity when launched, and that can be very expensive; the expectation is that the electronics for higher bandwidth will be much cheaper in a few years time than they are today.

(As a terrestrial example, at my employer we are still buying ethernet switches with just 100 Gbit/s ports, and plan to have to replace them with faster switches after 5-7 years.  We could buy switches with 400 Gbit/s ports and expect them to last maybe 10 years, but last time we checked, they were more than double the price of 100G switches, and we believe that by ~2027, 400G equipment will be at least as cheap as, and probably cheaper than, 100G equipment is today.  Thus we can chose between paying $X every five years, or paying $2.5X every ten years.  The former is cheaper and the cash flow requirements are lower.)

And then, based on those assumptions, SpaceX have designed their satellites with enough propellant to last 5 years plus margin, but not 10 years; and with reliability to last 5 years but not 10 years, et.c.

Quote from: M.E.T.
That would vastly improve Starlink’s profitability.

Not necessarily, as explained above.

Of course, this is a bet by SpaceX on how costs of electronics will evolve, how bandwidth demands will evolve, and how launch costs will evolve.  It may be that bandwidth demands stop increasing, that electronics costs flatten at the current levels (or even increase, as many things have done the last two years), and that launch costs stop at the current levels.  Then the bet fails, and it might have been better to design for longer economical lifetimes.

Note that communication satellites in geostationary orbit has a somewhat easier task of being economical for 10-15 years than LEO comsats.  Being in GEO, each satellite serve a specific region, but different regions of the Earth have different capacity needs and expectations.  You can thus launch a state-of-the-art GEO sat to a slot that serves e.g. the continental USA, and plan for it to serve that role for 5-7 years, and then reposition it so it serves some less demanding region (maybe Africa, or polynesian islands) for another 5-7 years.  (This is done somewhat regularly; it's not just a theoretical idea.)  LEO sats on the other hand will need to serve almost the entire Earth, and thus needs to be able to satisfy the needs of the most demanding regions (slight simplification).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/20/2022 12:18 pm
So I can’t quite recall - was the 5 year satellite lifespan a hard limit? Was it the orbital decay period without any station keeping? Could the Gen 2 satellites have extra fuel to extend the lifespan to say double the original 5 years?

It's based on the expected economical lifespan of the satellites, i.e, how long until they are outdated and no longer worth operating.  And that in turn is based on their designed bandwidth capacity, which has been designed for replacement (and thus upgrade) after ca 5 years.

The satellites are built with a certain maximum bandwidth capacity, both per customer (terminal) and aggregated for the entire satellite.  Will that capacity be enough to satisfy customers in 2030?  SpaceX designed their system on the assumption that it would be cheaper to build satellites that would have an economical lifetime of five years, and replace them every five years, than to build them to have an economical lifetime of ten years.  The latter would require them to have a significant overcapacity when launched, and that can be very expensive; the expectation is that the electronics for higher bandwidth will be much cheaper in a few years time than they are today.

(As a terrestrial example, at my employer we are still buying ethernet switches with just 100 Gbit/s ports, and plan to have to replace them with faster switches after 5-7 years.  We could buy switches with 400 Gbit/s ports and expect them to last maybe 10 years, but last time we checked, they were more than double the price of 100G switches, and we believe that by ~2027, 400G equipment will be at least as cheap as, and probably cheaper than, 100G equipment is today.  Thus we can chose between paying $X every five years, or paying $2.5X every ten years.  The former is cheaper and the cash flow requirements are lower.)

And then, based on those assumptions, SpaceX have designed their satellites with enough propellant to last 5 years plus margin, but not 10 years; and with reliability to last 5 years but not 10 years, et.c.

Quote from: M.E.T.
That would vastly improve Starlink’s profitability.

Not necessarily, as explained above.

Of course, this is a bet by SpaceX on how costs of electronics will evolve, how bandwidth demands will evolve, and how launch costs will evolve.  It may be that bandwidth demands stop increasing, that electronics costs flatten at the current levels (or even increase, as many things have done the last two years), and that launch costs stop at the current levels.  Then the bet fails, and it might have been better to design for longer economical lifetimes.

Note that communication satellites in geostationary orbit has a somewhat easier task of being economical for 10-15 years than LEO comsats.  Being in GEO, each satellite serve a specific region, but different regions of the Earth have different capacity needs and expectations.  You can thus launch a state-of-the-art GEO sat to a slot that serves e.g. the continental USA, and plan for it to serve that role for 5-7 years, and then reposition it so it serves some less demanding region (maybe Africa, or polynesian islands) for another 5-7 years.  (This is done somewhat regularly; it's not just a theoretical idea.)  LEO sats on the other hand will need to serve almost the entire Earth, and thus needs to be able to satisfy the needs of the most demanding regions (slight simplification).

Interesting. I also imagine SpaceX likes iterating and will rather launch a barely good enough satellite now to save time, and then upgrade it with a Gen 2 or Gen 3 as their manufacturing capability and understanding of the market improves over time.

Thanks for the insight.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/20/2022 01:37 pm
It depends on whether electronics and bandwidth actually will improve on that timescale. Some aspects of Moore’s Law have significantly slowed (for instance: SRAM hasn’t scaled significantly in the last two fab process shrinkages, although logic has).

However, there is good reason to believe that launch capability and costs of space hardware WILL reduce significantly reduce in costs in the next 5 years, so a 10 year lifespan would probably be premature.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 12/20/2022 05:03 pm
Also showing that electronics will last for ten years is a lot harder than showing they will last for five years.  If you don't need extended life to close a business case you can low ball lifespan and maybe have a useful mission extension later after you have five years of experience.  Easing the specs can save a lot of time and money during development.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/20/2022 07:26 pm
While design life is at 7 years. Limited mostly by the Argon load. Actual life is a function of each sat's prop usage in any movements it has to do during it's life. This 7 year design life also has some amount of margin but what that margin is, is an unknown. It was already mentioned that from a programmatic business economic sense 5 years is the planed replacement point with the next generation sat design. The additional 2 years is a cushion if needed due to things like licensing debacles. Gen 1 has only been in space from first operation sats to when the last of them gets deployed. So a 3 year period for a constellation deployment effort may end being the goal.

The Note here is that even with the first generation yet to be fully deployed. Sometime soon the next generation will start being deployed. A few at first to do validation and debugging of systems and then a ramp up of deployment at the tail end of the Gen 1 deployment.

If I am not mistaken there are less than a 1000 Gen 1 left to be deployed. This year was 1700 sats deployed. So finish of Gen 1 deployment will take ~half a year.

Another interesting item is that all of the Gen 1 constellation 4,400 sats at ~0.36t each is a total of ~1,500t. This next constellation so far just 7,500 sats with mass of >1t each would be ~8,000t. The aim would be to try to get these 7,500 sats deployed in 3 years. Or ~2,500 sats average per year. It actually would be more of a steep ramp up in launch rate totals year to year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/20/2022 08:26 pm
Increased debris from Russia anti-satellite “tests” could most certainly reduce operating lifespan by requiring more maneuvers.

Could be mitigated by much better tracking.

So if they wanted to significantly extend lifespan of their satellites, a straightforward investment would be superior tracking ability. A factor of 2 improvement in position precision should enable a roughly factor of 4 reduction in the collision probability area spread, and also reduce the delta-v required when movement IS required by a factor of 2 or so, so a favor of 2 improvement in overall tracking should reduce avoidance-related propellant consumption by about an order of magnitude, assuming the same size of debris.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/21/2022 12:51 am
Maybe not. The name of the game is to not be there when the orbits cross.

If you want to get ahead of it, you reboost earlier than planned.

If you want to fall behind,  you delay a reboost.

Either way, you are not expending extra propellant. Just changing the planned burn times.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Redclaws on 12/21/2022 12:59 am
Maybe not. The name of the game is to not be there when the orbits cross.

If you want to get ahead of it, you reboost earlier than planned.

If you want to fall behind,  you delay a reboost.

Either way, you are not expending extra propellant. Just changing the planned burn times.

What if you just reboosted or there’s another conflict preventing that?  It’s still going to be disruptive.  Also, the reboost times are chosen to be optimal.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/21/2022 01:04 am
Maybe not. The name of the game is to not be there when the orbits cross.

If you want to get ahead of it, you reboost earlier than planned.

If you want to fall behind,  you delay a reboost.

Either way, you are not expending extra propellant. Just changing the planned burn times.
You usually do need extra propellant if you maneuvering regularly.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vaporcobra on 12/21/2022 02:37 am
How many Starlink v2 could the F9 carry to LEO? I assume these satellites won't be 1250 kg/piece nor as big as per the official data.

The smaller size shown here seems to be pretty much the same as the gen1 sats currently being launched.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2436554#msg2436554
IOW, the F9-2 and Starship buses are roughly the same amount too long.  Seems like something that's about 40-50cm long must fold out after deployment.

This is likely true! Hard to say for sure because SpaceX has two V1.5-era renders that look significantly different, but V1.5 satellites appear to have sliding/swinging mechanisms to deploy what I assume are two TT&C antennas.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Barley on 12/21/2022 07:38 am
Maybe not. The name of the game is to not be there when the orbits cross.

If you want to get ahead of it, you reboost earlier than planned.

If you want to fall behind,  you delay a reboost.

Either way, you are not expending extra propellant. Just changing the planned burn times.

What if you just reboosted or there’s another conflict preventing that?  It’s still going to be disruptive.  Also, the reboost times are chosen to be optimal.

Optimal for what?  It's likely if you optimize for maintaining orbit and avoiding debris you do better than optimizing for maintaining orbit and treating avoidance as an add on.  You can look multiple collisions ahead.  Ideally you throw the error tolerances for satellite location into the pot instead of blindly following the center line.  Lots of room for throwing exaflops and mathematicians at the problem.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 12/21/2022 09:56 pm
Maybe not. The name of the game is to not be there when the orbits cross.

If you want to get ahead of it, you reboost earlier than planned.

If you want to fall behind,  you delay a reboost.

Either way, you are not expending extra propellant. Just changing the planned burn times.

What if you just reboosted or there’s another conflict preventing that?  It’s still going to be disruptive.  Also, the reboost times are chosen to be optimal.

Optimal for what?  It's likely if you optimize for maintaining orbit and avoiding debris you do better than optimizing for maintaining orbit and treating avoidance as an add on.  You can look multiple collisions ahead.  Ideally you throw the error tolerances for satellite location into the pot instead of blindly following the center line.  Lots of room for throwing exaflops and mathematicians at the problem.
I question how far out a projection works. The earth is gravitationally lumpy but well characterized so this isn't impossible. Just don't ask me to do it.


The real problem is atmospherics. We don't have a handle on solar weather enough for meaningful projections and that is a major influence on the atmosphere. Add in that most debris is irregular and tumbling and there is just no way to do long term projections.


I've also a weak hunch that charge buildup might have some influence.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 12/23/2022 09:05 pm
While design life is at 7 years. Limited mostly by the Argon load. Actual life is a function of each sat's prop usage in any movements it has to do during it's life.
...

From an FCC filling ( https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2442934#msg2442934 )
For Gen2
Quote from: SpaceX
SpaceX has budgeted sufficient propellant to accommodate approximately 5,000 propulsive maneuvers over the life of a satellite, including a budget of approximately 350 collision avoidance maneuvers per satellite over that time period. Using SpaceX’s semi-annual satellite reports for comparison, the average SpaceX’s Gen1 satellite has conducted fewer than three collision-avoidance maneuvers every six months over the last year, and it conducted these maneuvers predominantly to avoid debris from the November 2021 Russian anti-satellite demonstration. Even under these anomalous conditions, a 350-maneuver budget is extremely conservative.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 12/26/2022 02:35 am
While design life is at 7 years. Limited mostly by the Argon load. Actual life is a function of each sat's prop usage in any movements it has to do during it's life.
...

From an FCC filling ( https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2442934#msg2442934 )
For Gen2
Quote from: SpaceX
SpaceX has budgeted sufficient propellant to accommodate approximately 5,000 propulsive maneuvers over the life of a satellite, including a budget of approximately 350 collision avoidance maneuvers per satellite over that time period. Using SpaceX’s semi-annual satellite reports for comparison, the average SpaceX’s Gen1 satellite has conducted fewer than three collision-avoidance maneuvers every six months over the last year, and it conducted these maneuvers predominantly to avoid debris from the November 2021 Russian anti-satellite demonstration. Even under these anomalous conditions, a 350-maneuver budget is extremely conservative.

Ah, but how much does regular orbit maintenance consume in maneuver units, initial orbit raise in units, and how much does the final deorbit work consume out of that 5000-350 maneuver unit budget?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tommyboy on 12/26/2022 09:01 pm
While design life is at 7 years. Limited mostly by the Argon load. Actual life is a function of each sat's prop usage in any movements it has to do during it's life.
...

From an FCC filling ( https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2442934#msg2442934 )
For Gen2
Quote from: SpaceX
SpaceX has budgeted sufficient propellant to accommodate approximately 5,000 propulsive maneuvers over the life of a satellite, including a budget of approximately 350 collision avoidance maneuvers per satellite over that time period. Using SpaceX’s semi-annual satellite reports for comparison, the average SpaceX’s Gen1 satellite has conducted fewer than three collision-avoidance maneuvers every six months over the last year, and it conducted these maneuvers predominantly to avoid debris from the November 2021 Russian anti-satellite demonstration. Even under these anomalous conditions, a 350-maneuver budget is extremely conservative.

Ah, but how much does regular orbit maintenance consume in maneuver units
Up to 5000 sounds logical.
Quote
initial orbit raise in units
0 sounds logical, otherwise the budget would be for "approximately 5,000 propulsive maneuvers over the life of a satellite, including initital orbit raising and a budget of approximately 350 collision avoidance maneuvers per satellite over that time period"
Quote
how much does the final deorbit work consume out of that 5000-350 maneuver unit budget?
0 sounds logical, otherwise the budget would be for "approximately 5,000 propulsive maneuvers over the life of a satellite, including deorbit and a budget of approximately 350 collision avoidance maneuvers per satellite over that time period"
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 12/31/2022 02:22 am
https://twitter.com/VirtuallyNathan/status/1607123616638074880

Quote
Starlink Group 4 shell orbit/positioning changes 🧵 1/10
(Credit for all of this goes to Hugo on http://forum.raumfahrer.net, translation help from Liam at NSF) @planet4589 @mikepuchol @Megaconstellati



The sats fly in a kind of zipper system. In the graphs below, sat 1 flys down-right and sat 2 flies up-right. Because sat 1 is further ahead on its orbit compared to sat 2, they will not meet, but pass each other. This works if each satellite has a perfect orbit and position.



However, when a satellite misses its orbit, it flies on a shifted orbit. You can see in the following graphic that satellites 1 and 2 now arrive at the crossing point of the orbits at the same time. This would lead to a collision and is therefore can't be done.



In the past, SpaceX has perfected the orbit. That is, they increased or decreased the orbit of the satellite. That costs fuel and time. Time in which the satellite is not in its position, so the network has a gap there.



However, what would happen if sat 1 flies in a shifted position and shifted orbit? It would fly further ahead. The zipper system would work again. It's position and orbit wouldn't be perfect, but since the satellites coverage overlaps, this would be easy to cope with.



It should be noted that there are not 2 lanes, but 72. All sats must therefore fly in such a way that the zipper system works with all other 71 lanes. It is hard to imagine this working with all 72 lanes, buut apparently SpaceX calculated this and determined it is possible.



The next graph shows a dot for all sats in Group 4, the orbit shift on the X and the position shift on the Y axis. As you can see, most sats fly with ~1% accuracy. You can also see that the satellites with a negative orbit shift have a positive position shift, and vice versa.



In the following graphic, all Starlink sats that are in an operating position or supplementary position from all operating orbits. You can see most are in the middle and there are two major outlier axes. The outlier axis for  G-1 is plotted in red and G-4 is plotted in green.



For operational orbit 1, the orbit-to-position error factor is -0.18.
For operational orbit 4, the orbit-to-position error factor is -1.18.



Conclusion:
- SpaceX has been flying its satellites with a changed orbit geometry for several weeks.
- Pros: It costs less fuel.
- Disadvantage: The diagrams are less visually pleasing



Original forum post: https://forum.raumfahrer.net/index.php?topic=13231.2400

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/31/2022 02:38 am
Not to raise an eyebrow,  but those tweets are paraphrasing analysis that a member of raumfahrer did back in November.

I really enjoy Hugo's post over on raumfahrer,  I find his monthly break down of starlink positions well worth the read.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: virtuallynathan on 12/31/2022 01:03 pm
Not to raise an eyebrow,  but those tweets are paraphrasing analysis that a member of raumfahrer did back in November.

I really enjoy Hugo's post over on raumfahrer,  I find his monthly break down of starlink positions well worth the read.


I made sure to credit Hugo in the first tweet. I've been talking to him and he nearly has his english translated graphics ready to go.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 01/10/2023 03:08 am
International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) is suing FCC over Starlink Gen2 Approval: IDA appeals FCC approval of SpaceX Gen2 satellite constellation (https://www.darksky.org/ida-appeals-fcc-approval-of-spacex-gen2-satellite-constellation/)

Quote from: IDA
On December 29, 2022, IDA lodged an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of the order of the Federal Communications Commission: In the Matter of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC; Request for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX Gen2 NGSO Satellite System.
We appealed in response to the FCC order and authorization approving SpaceX to deploy and maintain a constellation of 7500 satellites in low earth orbit.

The range of impacts to the human environment includes, but is not limited to, harm to professional and amateur astronomy; impairment of cultural, religious, and heritage values of the night sky; risk to the environment through deposition of alumina in the upper atmosphere; exacerbating climate change; and a diminishment in the enjoyment of the dark sky. You can read our recent story from our Nightscape magazine here to learn more.

It is unprecedented for IDA to resort to the court system to resolve disputes. But in this case, we felt compelled to act. With plans to deploy and maintain dozens of satellite constellations, with upwards of one hundred thousand satellites orbiting at any one time, it is critical that federal agencies responsible for making decisions on the future of the night sky – an essential element of the human environment – follow existing laws.

In addition to ensuring compliance with existing laws, a new approach is needed in the long term. As we rush to industrialize the use of low earth orbit, we need a new regulatory framework to ensure the just, equitable, and sustainable use of space for all.

IDA is not opposed to satellites. We rely on them daily for our work – from communicating with advocates worldwide to remote sensing satellites that allow us to understand the impact of light pollution on the planet.  Recognizing this, in 2020, we published a set of principles for responsible satellite projects. By following these principles, we can take important steps to ensure the sustainable and equitable use of low earth orbit for all.

IDA’s five principles to preserve the quiet enjoyment of the night sky and protect the general public from the impacts of megaconstellations:

1. Stewardship of the night sky is a shared responsibility that requires participation and consultation with all stakeholders.
2. The cumulative impact on night sky brightness attributed to satellites does not exceed 10 percent above natural background levels.
3. Maintained satellite brightness is below the threshold for detection by the unaided eye.
4. Satellite visibility is an unusual occurrence.
5. Launch schedules and orbital parameters are publicly available in advance.

*Adopted January 2020. Amended September 2021.

Of course the irony is that Starlink meets their 5 principles very well, and it's probably the only megaconstellation meeting these principles.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: traku on 01/10/2023 07:38 pm
Maybe I missed the discussion, but are there any public details on how Starlink establishes and maintains the link between terminal - satellite - gateway? To be specific, what does the handshake process look like? How does it maintain knowledge of what terminal is where?

Does it use a terminal ID for every communication? Or does it work more like typical routing, where a routing table is maintained?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/10/2023 09:53 pm
https://beta.nsf.gov/news/statement-nsf-astronomy-coordination-agreement

Quote
NSF statement on NSF and SpaceX Astronomy Coordination Agreement
January 10, 2023

SpaceX is launching and operating its satellite constellation in low-Earth orbit to provide high-speed internet service.  SpaceX's satellite network currently provides high-speed internet to more than 600,000 locations in the United States, often in remote or previously unserved and underserved areas. Some of the frequencies in which the satellites transmit towards Earth are adjacent to radio astronomy allocations. Operating the satellites without mitigations could impact ground-based radio, optical and infrared astronomy facilities.

SpaceX worked with the U.S. National Science Foundation and its radio astronomy observatories to mitigate potential interference from SpaceX satellite transmissions, focusing on the 10.6 – 10.7 GHz radio astronomy band. NSF and SpaceX finalized a coordination agreement in 2019 to ensure the company’s Starlink satellite network meets international radio astronomy protection standards for that band. This also fulfilled conditions of their Generation 1 Federal Communications Commission license (File No. SAT-MOD-20200417- 00037).

NSF and SpaceX continue to explore methods to further protect ground-based astronomy, and a new coordination agreement was signed in 2022 with the following provisions, which fulfilled conditions of their Generation 2 FCC license (File No. SAT-AMD-20210818-00105):

NSF and SpaceX agreed to cooperate to the extent practicable to mitigate the impact on optical and infrared ground-based astronomical facilities. SpaceX committed to continue work towards recommendations that came from NSF’s NOIRLab, the American Astronomical Society’s SATCON workshops and the International Astronomical Union’s Dark and Quiet Skies best practices guidance. These recommendations include continuing to work to reduce the optical brightness of their satellites to 7th visual magnitude or fainter by physical design changes, attitude maneuvering, or other ideas to be developed; maintaining orbital elevations at ~700 km or lower; and providing orbital information publicly that astronomers can use for scheduling observations around satellite locations.
 
Specific mitigations SpaceX has developed for its second-generation satellites include dielectric mirror film, solar array mitigations, new black paint that minimizes brightness and glints, and best practices during flight operations. Details of these mitigations and ongoing work were presented at the 2022 Vera C. Rubin Community Workshop.
 
SpaceX agreed to analyze the impact of astronomical facility lasers on its satellites. Following this analysis, the Laser Clearinghouse removed the coordination requirements for these lasers.  Therefore, adaptive optics lasers at ground-based facilities will no longer undergo multiple closures every time the SpaceX satellites pass nearby. SpaceX is also working with NSF’s NOIRLab to organize a workshop to develop best practices guidance on these topics. The workshop will recommend processes for interactions between satellite operators and the Laser Clearinghouse aimed at mitigating negative impacts on ground-based astronomical facilities.
 
For radio astronomy, SpaceX committed to coordinating dynamically with impacted United States radio astronomy facilities. This commitment goes beyond the required international protections for the 10.6-10.7 GHz band and enables radio astronomy observations operating in other bands that are not allocated to radio astronomy. This coordination includes avoiding main beam illumination during observations at key radio astronomy facilities that would be impacted, such as the Very Large Array (VLA), Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), Green Bank Observatory (GBO), Arecibo Observatory (AO), and geodetic Very Long Baseline Interferometric (VLBI) stations. 
 
SpaceX and NSF’s National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) completed field tests at the VLA and GBO and have more tests planned in the coming year to verify that radio astronomy observations are not impacted.  Additionally, due to the high demand for satellite internet in communities that have been historically underserved or unserved, some of which are located near radio astronomy observatories, NSF’s NRAO has initiated a pilot program to test the impact of SpaceX user terminals in close proximity to the VLA.
 
SpaceX committed to coordinating with NSF’s Office of Polar Programs to work to minimize the impact of SpaceX on remote geographical radio astronomy sites in polar regions when the SpaceX constellation provides data connectivity in these regions.
 
NSF’s NOIRLab serves as the key point of contact for technical exchanges with SpaceX on optical and infrared issues and NSF’s NRAO for radio astronomy issues. NSF is grateful for the work of NOIRLab staff Julian Christou, Pat McCarthy and Connie Walker and NRAO staff Tony Beasley, Chris De Pree and Harvey Liszt and many other colleagues.
 
SpaceX committed to work with NSF as interference arises or new challenges are brought to our attention by the astronomy community. Regulatory agencies should set a high standard for new and existing satellite systems to implement spectrally efficient methods that expand the scope of scientific missions by NSF and its facilities, not reduce them.
 
NSF and SpaceX have collaborated from the beginning on how best to meet the goals of protecting astronomy while also providing maximum internet access for communities across the United States. The mitigation steps taken can and should serve as a model for coordination among satellite operators and the astronomy community within the United States and beyond.
“We are setting the stage for a successful partnership between commercial and public endeavors that allows important science research to flourish alongside satellite communication,” said NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 01/11/2023 01:15 am
The other NSF, not to be confused with NASA Spaceflight.

That will be a true test of beamforming because a wide transmission beam will affect radio telescopes for sure.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/11/2023 01:38 pm
The irony is that astronomers’ best long term play is to support Starlink’s full 30,000 satellite rollout to be as fast and successful as possible, to the extent that it utterly captures and dominates the market. Thereby making the majority of competing constellations unviable before they are even launched.

The alternative will be half a dozen Starlink sized constellations - many of which will take a decade or more to go bankrupt, leaving debris in orbit for years beyond that.

At least SpaceX is making every effort to mitigate astronomical impacts as far as possible. So use SpaceX to kill off all but the geopolitically inevitable constellations such as those from the likes of China (and maybe India eventually).

Use SpaceX’s efficiency to kill most commercial constellations before they are even born.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 01/11/2023 01:51 pm
The irony is that astronomers’ best long term play is to support Starlink’s full 30,000 satellite rollout to be as fast and successful as possible, to the extent that it utterly captures and dominates the market. Thereby making the majority of competing constellations unviable before they are even launched.

The alternative will be half a dozen Starlink sized constellations - many of which will take a decade or more to go bankrupt, leaving debris in orbit for years beyond that.

At least SpaceX is making every effort to mitigate astronomical impacts as far as possible. So use SpaceX to kill off all but the geopolitically inevitable constellations such as those from the likes of China (and maybe India eventually).

Use SpaceX’s efficiency to kill most commercial constellations before they are even born.
This is totally false. Starlink won't "own" the entire satellite market. Is there more than 1 internet provider in the world today? The idea that in 10 years starlink will "own" the market is pure stan fantasy. Of course there will be more.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/11/2023 01:56 pm
The irony is that astronomers’ best long term play is to support Starlink’s full 30,000 satellite rollout to be as fast and successful as possible, to the extent that it utterly captures and dominates the market. Thereby making the majority of competing constellations unviable before they are even launched.

The alternative will be half a dozen Starlink sized constellations - many of which will take a decade or more to go bankrupt, leaving debris in orbit for years beyond that.

At least SpaceX is making every effort to mitigate astronomical impacts as far as possible. So use SpaceX to kill off all but the geopolitically inevitable constellations such as those from the likes of China (and maybe India eventually).

Use SpaceX’s efficiency to kill most commercial constellations before they are even born.
This is totally false. Starlink won't "own" the entire satellite market. Is there more than 1 internet provider in the world today? The idea that in 10 years starlink will "own" the market is pure stan fantasy. Of course there will be more.

A dominant Starlink will make business cases more difficult for purely commercial operators, just like a dominant SpaceX launch company is killing off pretty much every would-be commercial smallsat launch competitor in the cradle today (and probably a bunch of medium/heavy launch companies as well).

Geopolitically important rivals will always remain artificially propped up, but many commercial ventures will be stillborn, or die before becoming cash flow positive, thus minimising the cumulative number of LEO satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/11/2023 03:49 pm

GPS, while the easiest to use isn't the only satellite navigation system. BeiDou, GLONASS, and Galileo are examples of systems redundant to GPS.

For similar reasons, even if Starlink becomes dominant it will not be the only system. China will build it's own system.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 01/12/2023 02:15 pm

GPS, while the easiest to use isn't the only satellite navigation system. BeiDou, GLONASS, and Galileo are examples of systems redundant to GPS.

For similar reasons, even if Starlink becomes dominant it will not be the only system. China will build it's own system.

Satellite navigation systems and LEO Satcom systems is comparing apples and oranges. SatNav systems might need a few dozen satellites with service life of about 12 years to be viable. However a LEO Satcom system providing direct to user internet access will need at least thousands if not tens of thousands of satellites with short service life of a few years.

The Chinese (really the CCP) building a direct to user internet access LEO satcom constellation isn't in the cards. They don't allow easy access to the internet and external internet platforms like social media and search engines for people within China. Outside of China their satcom and networking hardware is being phased out due to security concerns.

The Highlander movie meme of "There can be only One" seems to be appropriate for Starlink to be the sole top tier direct to users satellite internet service provider.

The window for entry to the direct to user satellite internet provider market appears to be closing. As soon as Kuiper (Amazon) start putting up their initial operational LEO satcoms, IMO.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/12/2023 03:19 pm
By your same logic, there is nothing needed besides GPS. But multiple other systems exist. For the same reasons, other "Starlink" like systems beyond Kuiper will be, and are being built.

Also, China is very connected, heavily censored, but connected. By Jonathan McDowell's count they have three planned LEO internet mega constellations planned.
    -Chinese Guangwang Constellation with 12992 satellites planned
    -Galaxy Space (Yinhe) Constellation with 1000 satellites planned with 7 satellites already up
    -Hanwha Systems with 2000 satellites planned
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 01/12/2023 03:19 pm

GPS, while the easiest to use isn't the only satellite navigation system. BeiDou, GLONASS, and Galileo are examples of systems redundant to GPS.

For similar reasons, even if Starlink becomes dominant it will not be the only system. China will build it's own system.

Satellite navigation systems and LEO Satcom systems is comparing apples and oranges. SatNav systems might need a few dozen satellites with service life of about 12 years to be viable. However a LEO Satcom system providing direct to user internet access will need at least thousands if not tens of thousands of satellites with short service life of a few years.

The Chinese (really the CCP) building a direct to user internet access LEO satcom constellation isn't in the cards. They don't allow easy access to the internet and external internet platforms like social media and search engines for people within China. Outside of China their satcom and networking hardware is being phased out due to security concerns.

The Highlander movie meme of "There can be only One" seems to be appropriate for Starlink to be the sole top tier direct to users satellite internet service provider.

The window for entry to the direct to user satellite internet provider market appears to be closing. As soon as Kuiper (Amazon) start putting up their initial operational LEO satcoms, IMO.
Lets flip the question around - why do you think no one will compete with starlink? Please give a compelling argument for that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Reynold on 01/12/2023 03:30 pm
The irony is that astronomers’ best long term play is to support Starlink’s full 30,000 satellite rollout to be as fast and successful as possible, to the extent that it utterly captures and dominates the market. Thereby making the majority of competing constellations unviable before they are even launched.

The alternative will be half a dozen Starlink sized constellations - many of which will take a decade or more to go bankrupt, leaving debris in orbit for years beyond that.

At least SpaceX is making every effort to mitigate astronomical impacts as far as possible. So use SpaceX to kill off all but the geopolitically inevitable constellations such as those from the likes of China (and maybe India eventually).

Use SpaceX’s efficiency to kill most commercial constellations before they are even born.
This is totally false. Starlink won't "own" the entire satellite market. Is there more than 1 internet provider in the world today? The idea that in 10 years starlink will "own" the market is pure stan fantasy. Of course there will be more.

The multiple existing internet providers are largely separated geographically, unlike LEO satellite constellations.  I can't just call any of them up and get service to the house I live in.  I have only 2 options where I live in the U.S., and part of the reason I even have 2 is regulatory and historical, dating back to "universal" phone service and cable TV service.  I'm willing to bet a lot that nobody is going to spend the money to install new wires or fiber in this area to become another competitor. 

I don't know what Europe is like, can you typically sign up with any of several internet providers at an average house or apartment? 

That said, I do expect some constellations other than Starlink for specific commercial niches like OneWeb seems to be planning to pursue, and definitely some "national prestige/security" ones.  I would be surprised if even three are fully launched for general direct to consumer use beyond Starlink though. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/12/2023 04:28 pm

GPS, while the easiest to use isn't the only satellite navigation system. BeiDou, GLONASS, and Galileo are examples of systems redundant to GPS.

For similar reasons, even if Starlink becomes dominant it will not be the only system. China will build it's own system.

Satellite navigation systems and LEO Satcom systems is comparing apples and oranges. SatNav systems might need a few dozen satellites with service life of about 12 years to be viable. However a LEO Satcom system providing direct to user internet access will need at least thousands if not tens of thousands of satellites with short service life of a few years.

The Chinese (really the CCP) building a direct to user internet access LEO satcom constellation isn't in the cards. They don't allow easy access to the internet and external internet platforms like social media and search engines for people within China. Outside of China their satcom and networking hardware is being phased out due to security concerns.

The Highlander movie meme of "There can be only One" seems to be appropriate for Starlink to be the sole top tier direct to users satellite internet service provider.

The window for entry to the direct to user satellite internet provider market appears to be closing. As soon as Kuiper (Amazon) start putting up their initial operational LEO satcoms, IMO.
Lets flip the question around - why do you think no one will compete with starlink? Please give a compelling argument for that.
I think there will be additional constellations, but they will not be free-market competitive. They will be used only by "anybody but SpaceX" (e.g., China, Amazon) and they will be subsidized.  The reason: launch costs. For the next decade, you must launch on either F9 or Starship, or pay a big premium. OneWeb will exist in a niche because it had already launched more than half its constellation before this situation arose.

The only way a viable competitor could arise is if the Starlink business is separated from the launch business (e.g., broken up by the courts due to anti-trust). Then another company would have equal access to SpaceX launches. But this new company would have trouble raising money given the dominant Starlink position and the huge cost of launching its initial constellation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 01/12/2023 04:31 pm

GPS, while the easiest to use isn't the only satellite navigation system. BeiDou, GLONASS, and Galileo are examples of systems redundant to GPS.

For similar reasons, even if Starlink becomes dominant it will not be the only system. China will build it's own system.

Satellite navigation systems and LEO Satcom systems is comparing apples and oranges. SatNav systems might need a few dozen satellites with service life of about 12 years to be viable. However a LEO Satcom system providing direct to user internet access will need at least thousands if not tens of thousands of satellites with short service life of a few years.

The Chinese (really the CCP) building a direct to user internet access LEO satcom constellation isn't in the cards. They don't allow easy access to the internet and external internet platforms like social media and search engines for people within China. Outside of China their satcom and networking hardware is being phased out due to security concerns.

The Highlander movie meme of "There can be only One" seems to be appropriate for Starlink to be the sole top tier direct to users satellite internet service provider.

The window for entry to the direct to user satellite internet provider market appears to be closing. As soon as Kuiper (Amazon) start putting up their initial operational LEO satcoms, IMO.
Lets flip the question around - why do you think no one will compete with starlink? Please give a compelling argument for that.

The capital costs are prohibitive to be on the cutting edge with Starlink.  Table stakes are extreme:  long-term investment commitments in multiples of $10 billion, with no investment holidays.  A difficult ask for even superpower-level governments.  Several years ago, OneWeb threw in the towel on competing against Starlink.  More recently, Telesat did the same.  Kuiper is next on-deck for investment rationalization.

Many are still looking at Starlink and wondering whether it will go bankrupt.  It is a technological marvel, but many question its business case.  That said, nobody appears to be pot-committed like SpaceX.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/12/2023 08:51 pm
International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) is suing FCC over Starlink Gen2 Approval: IDA appeals FCC approval of SpaceX Gen2 satellite constellation (https://www.darksky.org/ida-appeals-fcc-approval-of-spacex-gen2-satellite-constellation/)

Quote from: IDA
On December 29, 2022, IDA lodged an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of the order of the Federal Communications Commission: In the Matter of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC; Request for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX Gen2 NGSO Satellite System.
We appealed in response to the FCC order and authorization approving SpaceX to deploy and maintain a constellation of 7500 satellites in low earth orbit.

The range of impacts to the human environment includes, but is not limited to, harm to professional and amateur astronomy; impairment of cultural, religious, and heritage values of the night sky; risk to the environment through deposition of alumina in the upper atmosphere; exacerbating climate change; and a diminishment in the enjoyment of the dark sky. You can read our recent story from our Nightscape magazine here to learn more.

It is unprecedented for IDA to resort to the court system to resolve disputes. But in this case, we felt compelled to act. With plans to deploy and maintain dozens of satellite constellations, with upwards of one hundred thousand satellites orbiting at any one time, it is critical that federal agencies responsible for making decisions on the future of the night sky – an essential element of the human environment – follow existing laws.

In addition to ensuring compliance with existing laws, a new approach is needed in the long term. As we rush to industrialize the use of low earth orbit, we need a new regulatory framework to ensure the just, equitable, and sustainable use of space for all.

IDA is not opposed to satellites. We rely on them daily for our work – from communicating with advocates worldwide to remote sensing satellites that allow us to understand the impact of light pollution on the planet.  Recognizing this, in 2020, we published a set of principles for responsible satellite projects. By following these principles, we can take important steps to ensure the sustainable and equitable use of low earth orbit for all.

IDA’s five principles to preserve the quiet enjoyment of the night sky and protect the general public from the impacts of megaconstellations:

1. Stewardship of the night sky is a shared responsibility that requires participation and consultation with all stakeholders.
2. The cumulative impact on night sky brightness attributed to satellites does not exceed 10 percent above natural background levels.
3. Maintained satellite brightness is below the threshold for detection by the unaided eye.
4. Satellite visibility is an unusual occurrence.
5. Launch schedules and orbital parameters are publicly available in advance.

*Adopted January 2020. Amended September 2021.

Of course the irony is that Starlink meets their 5 principles very well, and it's probably the only megaconstellation meeting these principles.
Iridium would’ve failed these criteria. ISS fails them. Launch schedules being available in advance is a challenge due to weather and scheduling constraints, and I think that’s unreasonable as stated. If the information is already known internally, then sure, but not if it’s going to provide another big constraint on launch.

I think requiring satellites to be invisible to the unaided eye is a little too extreme. If a satellite is visible near dawn or dusk, that seems fine to me.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: tbellman on 01/12/2023 09:29 pm
I don't know what Europe is like, can you typically sign up with any of several internet providers at an average house or apartment? 

Here in Sweden, yes, it is very common to have many ISPs to choose from.  I have 21 different ISPs I can choose between in my apartment.  A relative of mine who lives out in the countryside, also has at least a dozen ISPs they can choose between.

But this is because the physical fiber infrastructure is separate from the Internet Service Provider.  Many towns and cities have fiber networks built and owned by the municipality, and more or less any ISP is allowed to provide Internet connectivity to customers over that fiber network, and I as an end-user can ask to be connected to any of those ISPs.  In other places, there are commercial companies that provide the same "open fiber" services.  And where my relative live, they have a local cooperative between the 20 or so houses that together paid for and own the fiber (but of course they have contracted out the actual building and running of the fiber network).

(Usually, the fiber owner doesn't actually provide a physical optical path between the end-users and the ISPs.  Instead they have ethernet switches, that are reconfigured to provide a virtual path between me and my ISP.  When you connect the first time, the fiber provider typically present a captive portal where you get to select which ISP you want to use, and then within a few minutes I'm connected to that ISP.)

To get your house connected to the municipal fiber network, you need to pay a one-time fee.  In my city, that's about 2500€ for a normal single-family house (apartment buildings are charged more), if there already is fiber in the street outside your house; if there isn't, its more expensive.  But the connection follows the house, so if you sell your house, the next owner doesn't have to pay to get connected again.

There are of course "vertical" fiber as well, where the fiber owner and the ISP is the same, and they don't let other ISPs onto the fiber, but I think open fiber is on the order of 80% of all residential fiber connections.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 01/13/2023 02:18 am
https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1613572891458650113

Quote
Wow it's already a year since my first article with @NASASpaceflight. It feels like yesterday. Also how things have changed since the writing of it! Now Starlink Gen 2 is also launching on F9 and it's many vehicles down the line from launching on Starship.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/01/starship-gen2-starlink/

Heard similar things on reddit, looks like it may be a while before we see Gen2 launching on Starship.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 01/13/2023 02:47 am
International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) is suing FCC over Starlink Gen2 Approval: IDA appeals FCC approval of SpaceX Gen2 satellite constellation (https://www.darksky.org/ida-appeals-fcc-approval-of-spacex-gen2-satellite-constellation/)

SpaceNews article (https://spacenews.com/nsf-and-spacex-reach-agreement-to-reduce-starlink-effects-on-astronomy/) mentioned Dish Network also filed a suit against FCC over Gen2.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jpo234 on 01/17/2023 05:23 pm
https://mobile.twitter.com/FedorovMykhailo/status/1615345258270982146
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 01/25/2023 11:50 am
Satellite constellations could interfere with meteorological spectrum (https://spacenews.com/ams-interference-2023/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
Satellite megaconstellations could pose a threat to the spectrum that meteorologists are eager to protect from radio frequency interference.

At the American Meteorological Society annual meeting in Denver, meteorologists and spectrum experts expressed concern about proposals for SpaceX’s second-generation Starlink broadband constellations and acknowledged that other proposed megaconstellations could create interference as well.

<snip>

“The sheer number of potential gateway uplink stations around the world could contribute to adjacent band contamination and further due diligence would be needed,” said David Lubar, Aerospace Corp. senior project leader, said at the AMS meeting. “We do not know if their out-of-band emissions will be an area of concern.”

The band in question is the E-band 81-86 GHz.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/25/2023 04:05 pm
Satellite constellations could interfere with meteorological spectrum (https://spacenews.com/ams-interference-2023/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
Satellite megaconstellations could pose a threat to the spectrum that meteorologists are eager to protect from radio frequency interference.

At the American Meteorological Society annual meeting in Denver, meteorologists and spectrum experts expressed concern about proposals for SpaceX’s second-generation Starlink broadband constellations and acknowledged that other proposed megaconstellations could create interference as well.

<snip>

“The sheer number of potential gateway uplink stations around the world could contribute to adjacent band contamination and further due diligence would be needed,” said David Lubar, Aerospace Corp. senior project leader, said at the AMS meeting. “We do not know if their out-of-band emissions will be an area of concern.”

The band in question is the E-band 81-86 GHz.
This dock has the info.See attached pdf page 53 (index 63) section 5.1.2 Spectrum requirements

Specifically the frequency of concern is 50 to 60 GHZ used by Meteorology and also 86-92GHZ of 6.000GHZ bandwidth for  Clouds, ice, snow, rain detection measurement. The best section of E Band for use as from ground to space is ~ 75GHZ to 90GHZ which is far away from the primary 61GHZ frequency with highest absorption by water vapor. A slight downward shift of as much as 1 GHZ to 80 to 85GHZ may be needed. The question is who is using the 80GHZ frequency?


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OTV Booster on 01/25/2023 10:27 pm
Satellite constellations could interfere with meteorological spectrum (https://spacenews.com/ams-interference-2023/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
Satellite megaconstellations could pose a threat to the spectrum that meteorologists are eager to protect from radio frequency interference.

At the American Meteorological Society annual meeting in Denver, meteorologists and spectrum experts expressed concern about proposals for SpaceX’s second-generation Starlink broadband constellations and acknowledged that other proposed megaconstellations could create interference as well.

<snip>

“The sheer number of potential gateway uplink stations around the world could contribute to adjacent band contamination and further due diligence would be needed,” said David Lubar, Aerospace Corp. senior project leader, said at the AMS meeting. “We do not know if their out-of-band emissions will be an area of concern.”

The band in question is the E-band 81-86 GHz.
This dock has the info.See attached pdf page 53 (index 63) section 5.1.2 Spectrum requirements

Specifically the frequency of concern is 50 to 60 GHZ used by Meteorology and also 86-92GHZ of 6.000GHZ bandwidth for  Clouds, ice, snow, rain detection measurement. The best section of E Band for use as from ground to space is ~ 75GHZ to 90GHZ which is far away from the primary 61GHZ frequency with highest absorption by water vapor. A slight downward shift of as much as 1 GHZ to 80 to 85GHZ may be needed. The question is who is using the 80GHZ frequency?
Any chance SX could make lemonade? Offer to send a calibrated signal, any time, any place for weather data. I'm guessing they currently send ground signals to GEO weather sats for measurement. Transmitting from a constellation of LEO sats to ground stations has the potential to give a more comprehensive data set.


Maybe they have enough control and instrumentation of their transmitters and terminals that no special calibration is needed. Embed the instantaneous power reading into the data signal, read the signal strength at the terminal, and NOAA becomes their next big customer for both instrumentation and data. Everybody wins.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/25/2023 11:03 pm
Satellite constellations could interfere with meteorological spectrum (https://spacenews.com/ams-interference-2023/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
Satellite megaconstellations could pose a threat to the spectrum that meteorologists are eager to protect from radio frequency interference.

At the American Meteorological Society annual meeting in Denver, meteorologists and spectrum experts expressed concern about proposals for SpaceX’s second-generation Starlink broadband constellations and acknowledged that other proposed megaconstellations could create interference as well.

<snip>

“The sheer number of potential gateway uplink stations around the world could contribute to adjacent band contamination and further due diligence would be needed,” said David Lubar, Aerospace Corp. senior project leader, said at the AMS meeting. “We do not know if their out-of-band emissions will be an area of concern.”

The band in question is the E-band 81-86 GHz.
This dock has the info.See attached pdf page 53 (index 63) section 5.1.2 Spectrum requirements

Specifically the frequency of concern is 50 to 60 GHZ used by Meteorology and also 86-92GHZ of 6.000GHZ bandwidth for  Clouds, ice, snow, rain detection measurement. The best section of E Band for use as from ground to space is ~ 75GHZ to 90GHZ which is far away from the primary 61GHZ frequency with highest absorption by water vapor. A slight downward shift of as much as 1 GHZ to 80 to 85GHZ may be needed. The question is who is using the 80GHZ frequency?
Any chance SX could make lemonade? Offer to send a calibrated signal, any time, any place for weather data. I'm guessing they currently send ground signals to GEO weather sats for measurement. Transmitting from a constellation of LEO sats to ground stations has the potential to give a more comprehensive data set.


Maybe they have enough control and instrumentation of their transmitters and terminals that no special calibration is needed. Embed the instantaneous power reading into the data signal, read the signal strength at the terminal, and NOAA becomes their next big customer for both instrumentation and data. Everybody wins.
Satcomm systems depend on accurate and continuous monitoring of received RF power levels so as to correct transmit power levels in an adaptive loop. Analyzing this stuff in real time would provide a major increase in available meteorological  data, especially about rainfall. I remember sitting in the net control center for a nationwide IP-over-satellite network (GEO in this case) and watching the storm fronts come in in real time. A big LEO net has enormously more data available.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 01/30/2023 03:48 am
So, I want to pose a question about the mystery final launch of Group 4: 4-24.

What's the news on it and what happened to it? Is it simply a rideshare that is having trouble with it's rideshare payload?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vaporcobra on 01/30/2023 04:07 am
So, I want to pose a question about the mystery final launch of Group 4: 4-24.

What's the news on it and what happened to it? Is it simply a rideshare that is having trouble with it's rideshare payload?

Shell #4 is a fraction of a launch away from a full 1584 satellites, so it looks like SpaceX just finished the shell before it could catch up with the launches it skipped! Maybe 4-24 will still get a chance to launch if/when enough of the existing satellites have to be retired.

https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/30/2023 04:43 am
I do wonder if SpaceX is trying to compete Phase 1 with just Vandenberg.  Namely shell 2, then once completed finish shell 3 and top off shells 1 and 4.

That might leave 4-24 orphaned, using a new launch designation

My guesstimate, they would finish Shell 2 around July, another month for Shell 3 (two/three launches), two more months for what we use to call Shell 5 (four launches), another two or so months ( about 3/4 launches) to top off Shells 1/2. That would put finishing Phase 1 in Decemberish... but this is SpaceX and the actual order will vary ;-)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 01/30/2023 07:45 am
On starlink.sx there's one orbital plane still missing. I wonder if 4-24 is meant to fill that missing plane of satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: r1279 on 01/30/2023 02:48 pm
On starlink.sx there's one orbital plane still missing. I wonder if 4-24 is meant to fill that missing plane of satellites.

That missing plane is being filled by sats from 4-37.  My pivot table from yesterday's data shows 20 sats raising to operational altitude for that plane with apogees between 506-528km [So likely already another 8km above that and climbing, soon to be operational]

[Edit: Today's apogees for this group of 20 at 513-537km]
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 01/30/2023 04:17 pm
Hmm, so the shell is likely complete once all Group 4 sats are at altitude?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/30/2023 06:02 pm
There is full, and just enough satellites to fill all the non-spare slots. Minimum Viable Starlink ;-)

I am curious how replenishment of Shell 1 will go. None of the current satellites have Laser interlinks. They do cost money and add mass... they could launch a few more satellites on missions when filling the holes. 

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jongoff on 02/01/2023 12:53 am
Dumb question, not sure if it's been answered before (I tend not to follow SpaceX threads too closely): for the Starlink 2 satellites to be launched on Starship, are they planning any near-polar inclination satellites to go with their mostly mid-inclination satellites? If so, can Starship hit polar orbits from the Cape, or will they need to do a Starship launch facility in Vandenberg? Is that something that's in the works? Someone was just asking me about Starship being able to deliver payloads to SSO, and I wasn't sure if they were actively planning to do a facility that could enable SSO/polar launches.

~Jon
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: flyright on 02/01/2023 01:53 am
SpaceX launches F9 into polar orbits from the Cape - launching to the south.
I imagine they'll be able to do the same with Starship.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/01/2023 04:08 am
If so, can Starship hit polar orbits from the Cape

45th Space Wing/Air Force discuss polar launch corridor from Florida (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/10/45th-space-wing-discuss-polar-launch-corridor-florida/)

SpaceX launches first polar orbit mission from Florida in decades (https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/08/31/spacex-launches-first-polar-orbit-mission-from-florida-in-decades/)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vaporcobra on 02/01/2023 05:47 am
Dumb question, not sure if it's been answered before (I tend not to follow SpaceX threads too closely): for the Starlink 2 satellites to be launched on Starship, are they planning any near-polar inclination satellites to go with their mostly mid-inclination satellites? If so, can Starship hit polar orbits from the Cape, or will they need to do a Starship launch facility in Vandenberg? Is that something that's in the works? Someone was just asking me about Starship being able to deliver payloads to SSO, and I wasn't sure if they were actively planning to do a facility that could enable SSO/polar launches.

~Jon

It's a fair question. To some extent, Starship is (theoretically) so capable that "offensively inefficient doglegs" may be an accurate answer.

Then there's the harder option of demonstrating enough reliability for Starship to follow in Falcon's footsteps and be certified to overfly Cuba. Once that's possible, Starship will also probably be allowed to overfly Mexico for polar trajectories out of Boca Chica.

Then there's refueling: probably just as far away as the land-overflight-through-reliability solution, but still potentially viable once refueling is routine.

Finally, the most annoying, expensive, and obvious option: build one or several new pads in more convenient areas. Would require new FAA EAs or at least EIS' in all cases, but SpaceX could potentially convert SLC-4, SLC-6 if ULA gives it up, or another unused VSFB site. At CCSFS, I believe there are a few abandoned southerly pads that could be converted and would be more favorable for polar trajectories than KSC LC-39A and LC-49. And while it's clear SpaceX isn't very enthusiastic about them, there are also floating platforms like Deimos/Phobos.

If the full Starlink Gen2 constellation (https://planet4589.org/space/con/conlist.html#:~:text=SG2%3A%20Starlink%20Constellation%2C%20Modified%20Gen%202%20Part%202%20(Approval%20deferred%20by%20FCC)) SpaceX proposed is eventually approved, they'll need to launch 3600 satellites to 96.9 degrees and a total of ~500 satellites to 115.7 and 148 degrees, so they clearly think they have a solution. My guess is the plan is to keep flying Falcon for another 10+ years, gain enough experience with Starship for it to be viewed as equally reliable, and then go with the Cuba/Mexico overflight option from pads at Boca and the Cape - with expensive offshore platforms or a VSFB pad as a backup option.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/01/2023 11:12 am
Do you really need 3600 to 97.6 degrees? The actual population density (research bases and transcon aircraft) is quite low. They only planned 520 satellies to 97.6 for Phase 1.

3600 to the 70 degrees, with larger populations in Alaska, Canada, Finland,  Norway, Sweden makes more sense.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/01/2023 02:11 pm
Do you really need 3600 to 97.6 degrees? The actual population density (research bases and transcon aircraft) is quite low. They only planned 520 satellies to 97.6 for Phase 1.

3600 to the 70 degrees, with larger populations in Alaska, Canada, Finland,  Norway, Sweden makes more sense.
It's not about density. It's about continuous coverage. Fortunately, you need fewer satellites in these near-polar orbits to provide this, because the orbits converge near the poles. That's why "only" 520 satellites suffice. However, the planes diverge as the satellites get further from the poles, so if you are counting on these satellites to provide continuous coverage above the highest latitude covered by the "normal" orbits, then you must compute for that latitude.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/01/2023 02:36 pm
Do you really need 3600 to 97.6 degrees? The actual population density (research bases and transcon aircraft) is quite low. They only planned 520 satellies to 97.6 for Phase 1.

3600 to the 70 degrees, with larger populations in Alaska, Canada, Finland,  Norway, Sweden makes more sense.

My guess is that polar transcontinental data transport is also considered important from a 1/10th-of-the-whole standpoint.

Also, if Starlink supports Starshield as part of the communications layer, polar peak capacity at the poles might be important.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/01/2023 03:31 pm
Fun with math,

The current Shell 2 spacing of 58 satellites per plane works out to roughly 690km between satellites.
Spacing between polar planes at 70 degrees (when you include the 6 Shell 2, and 4 Phase 1 Shell 5 planes) is 687 km, and much less at the poles.

Interesting that they are roughly the same.

More fun, Shell's 1 and 4 have a satellite spacing of roughly 1800km in each plane and  550 km between planes. Which was sufficient to launched service with Shell 1. That said, Planes 1 and 4 are designed to complement one another, so both those numbers when combined are half.

Getting back to the polar plane, the user density is a small number research stations and maybe weather stations above 70 degrees and the few hundred transcon  flights transiting the pole at any given point in time? While transcon is lucrative, and most likely high bandwidth, 3600 might be a bit overkill. SpaceX at the moment seems happy with only 2/3 of the Shell 3 launched. Assuming the 360km shells ever gets built. The biggest demand are the waitlisted areas below 43 degrees... Odd, SpaceX is maximizing it's phase 2 launches to 43 degrees. Best bang for the buck currently is orbits maximized to spend time below 43 degrees.
 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 02/02/2023 12:29 am
Getting back to the polar plane, the user density is a small number research stations and maybe weather stations above 70 degrees and the few hundred transcon  flights transiting the pole at any given point in time?

While transcon is lucrative, and most likely high bandwidth, 3600 might be a bit overkill.
2 thoughts:
- 3600 sounds like a lot, but it's 10% of the constellation.
- How much of the North-South ISL bandwidth these polar planes are able to carry? (Say, if I wanted Europe-Australia purely via Starlink)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/02/2023 03:02 am
Uuuum, a quick look shows the most direct (least hops) starlink to starlink from Austrailia to Europe is the descending 53 degree plane.

While valid, the satellites are launched for both in plane,  and cross plane ISL. So you might be hard pressed to find optimal ISL traffic that goes over the poles. Maybe Asia to North America?

When SpaceX completes Shell 2. It should increase the number of satellites in the sky above the wait listed continental US by roughly 20% (ignoring phase 2).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/02/2023 03:18 am
On ISL, the availability of Starlink in Brazil makes me wonder if SpaceX currently has operational plane to plane ISL. With only the in plane ISL currently in use.

The coming soon area on Brazil's East coast matches up well with the 53 degree descending node. All ground stations in Brazil are West and South of Salvador. They are clearly using ISL to provide coverage in the Amazon, but not the East area?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/07/2023 03:00 am
https://twitter.com/VirtuallyNathan/status/1620403108957552640

Quote from: Nathan Owens
Starlink’s Fair Use Policy is now pushed back to NET April 2023

Quote from: Starlink Insider
Interesting. It seems, at least judging by user reviews on FB & Reddit, that they got some of their speed issues in North America under control. May simply not be as urgent as it was before?

Quote from: Nathan Owens
Could be! Perhaps just technically challenging to implement as well
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/09/2023 12:01 am
Big news:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1623426945634430978

Quote
SpaceX president & COO Gwynne Shotwell, at #CST2023:

"This year Starlink will make money. We actually had a cash flow positive quarter last year."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/09/2023 03:41 am
More accurate Shotwell quote: https://spacenews.com/shotwell-ukraine-weaponized-starlink-in-war-against-russia/

Quote
While Musk said in October that Starlink was losing money, Shotwell offered a more upbeat assessment. “This year Starlink will make money,” she said, noting that the company’s Falcon launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft, and other unspecified work, already makes money.

“We actually had a cashflow positive quarter last year, excluding launch. This year, they’re paying for their own launches, and they will still make money,” she said.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 02/09/2023 07:02 am
More accurate Shotwell quote: https://spacenews.com/shotwell-ukraine-weaponized-starlink-in-war-against-russia/

Quote
While Musk said in October that Starlink was losing money, Shotwell offered a more upbeat assessment. “This year Starlink will make money,” she said, noting that the company’s Falcon launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft, and other unspecified work, already makes money.

“We actually had a cashflow positive quarter last year, excluding launch. This year, they’re paying for their own launches, and they will still make money,” she said.

That's it folks. 2023 is officially the year of the megaconstellation. Hat's off to SpaceX for proving it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: geza on 02/14/2023 05:25 am
Do we know, how many Starship launches are needed, and how fast, to deploy the Starlink constellation and satisfy FCC requirement? I asking this, because of the news about selling Phobos & Deimos. Shotwell said also that 100-200 launches are needed before human flight. Probably, they are Starlink flights.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vaporcobra on 02/14/2023 05:59 am
Do we know, how many Starship launches are needed, and how fast, to deploy the Starlink constellation and satisfy FCC requirement? I asking this, because of the news about selling Phobos & Deimos. Shotwell said also that 100-200 launches are needed before human flight. Probably, they are Starlink flights.

While the FCC's arbitrary partial grant is ridiculous, it makes that problem a lot easier for SpaceX in the interim. For 7500 full-size V2 satellites and assuming ~60 sats per launch, SpaceX only needs about 12 Starship launches per year between H2 2022 and Dec 2028 to hit the 50% milestone. The 50-100% milestone would then require 24/year.

Assuming the FCC actually does grant permission for more Gen2 satellites, you can then simply 4X the above figures to get a worst-case idea of the cadence required. In practice, the staggered grants would take the edge off and require fewer Starship launches per year to hit deployment milestones than if the whole constellation had been approved at once.

Edit: Should add that the situation will become even more favorable if SpaceX quickly develops a proper payload bay (or stretched fairing) and can use most of Starship's performance. Perhaps 80-125 V2.0 satellites per launch if/when that happens.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 02/14/2023 06:22 am
Do we know, how many Starship launches are needed, and how fast, to deploy the Starlink constellation and satisfy FCC requirement? I asking this, because of the news about selling Phobos & Deimos. Shotwell said also that 100-200 launches are needed before human flight. Probably, they are Starlink flights.

While the FCC's arbitrary partial grant is ridiculous, it makes that problem a lot easier for SpaceX in the interim. For 7500 full-size V2 satellites and assuming ~60 sats per launch, SpaceX only needs about 12 Starship launches per year between H2 2022 and Dec 2028 to hit the 50% milestone. The 50-100% milestone would then require 24/year.

Assuming the FCC actually does grant permission for more Gen2 satellites, you can then simply 4X the above figures to get a worst-case idea of the cadence required. In practice, the staggered grants would take the edge off and require fewer Starship launches per year to hit deployment milestones than if the whole constellation had been approved at once.

Edit: Should add that the situation will become even more favorable if SpaceX quickly develops a proper payload bay (or stretched fairing) and can use most of Starship's performance. Perhaps 80-125 V2.0 satellites per launch if/when that happens.

Minimum 12 launches a year, more like 24, implies both Florida launch is active and Texas is at max 6 launches a year...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/14/2023 01:49 pm
Do we know, how many Starship launches are needed, and how fast, to deploy the Starlink constellation and satisfy FCC requirement? I asking this, because of the news about selling Phobos & Deimos. Shotwell said also that 100-200 launches are needed before human flight. Probably, they are Starlink flights.

While the FCC's arbitrary partial grant is ridiculous, it makes that problem a lot easier for SpaceX in the interim. For 7500 full-size V2 satellites and assuming ~60 sats per launch, SpaceX only needs about 12 Starship launches per year between H2 2022 and Dec 2028 to hit the 50% milestone. The 50-100% milestone would then require 24/year.

Assuming the FCC actually does grant permission for more Gen2 satellites, you can then simply 4X the above figures to get a worst-case idea of the cadence required. In practice, the staggered grants would take the edge off and require fewer Starship launches per year to hit deployment milestones than if the whole constellation had been approved at once.

Edit: Should add that the situation will become even more favorable if SpaceX quickly develops a proper payload bay (or stretched fairing) and can use most of Starship's performance. Perhaps 80-125 V2.0 satellites per launch if/when that happens.
The old Pez animation showed 54 satellites per launch. 7500/54= 139 launches.
The mass of the Starship version of the V2 satellite been stated to be about 1370 kg. For a 150 tonne mass constrained stretched Starship, this is 109 satellites per launch, except the stretch modification and its dispenser are not zero mass, so randomly guess 100 satellites per launch. 7500/100=75 launches. If SpaceX can begin normal operations in January 2024, they will have 5 years (60 months)  to hit 50%: 70 launches (conservative) 38 launches (aggressive). But they also have about 20 Starship launches for HLS to complete in that timeframe, so  between 60 and 90 launches in 60 months.

Note: stretched non-EDL Starship is easy. Stretched EDL starship is not so easy.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/14/2023 06:54 pm
A value of 60 to 90 launches in 5 year period is 12 or 18 launches a year average.

I do not see that Starship will be a steady state launch rate. Starting at less than 12 and then ending significantly well above 36 per year at the 5 year point (2028). Hence by 2028 total launches should reach above 100 easily. Unless there are a lot of "engineering issues" encountered that requiers multiple years to solve before the launch rate growth occurs.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/14/2023 07:45 pm
A value of 60 to 90 launches in 5 year period is 12 or 18 launches a year average.

I do not see that Starship will be a steady state launch rate. Starting at less than 12 and then ending significantly well above 36 per year at the 5 year point (2028). Hence by 2028 total launches should reach above 100 easily. Unless there are a lot of "engineering issues" encountered that requiers multiple years to solve before the launch rate growth occurs.
Bad news: no modern LV has launched more than a total of 10 times in its first 4 years (2.5/yr).
Good news: Starship is designed for rapid full reuse, so maybe they can do 10 launches in the first four year and 100  launches in year 5.

I would love to see a faster ramp. I am an optimist. Maybe SpaceX can ramp more quickly: doubling eash year. Say 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 in years 2024-2028.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/14/2023 07:48 pm
Also if you want to massage that statistic a bit, Starship has done suborbital tests for years, now.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 02/14/2023 08:47 pm
Do we know, how many Starship launches are needed, and how fast, to deploy the Starlink constellation and satisfy FCC requirement? I asking this, because of the news about selling Phobos & Deimos. Shotwell said also that 100-200 launches are needed before human flight. Probably, they are Starlink flights.

While the FCC's arbitrary partial grant is ridiculous, it makes that problem a lot easier for SpaceX in the interim. For 7500 full-size V2 satellites and assuming ~60 sats per launch, SpaceX only needs about 12 Starship launches per year between H2 2022 and Dec 2028 to hit the 50% milestone. The 50-100% milestone would then require 24/year.

Assuming the FCC actually does grant permission for more Gen2 satellites, you can then simply 4X the above figures to get a worst-case idea of the cadence required. In practice, the staggered grants would take the edge off and require fewer Starship launches per year to hit deployment milestones than if the whole constellation had been approved at once.

Edit: Should add that the situation will become even more favorable if SpaceX quickly develops a proper payload bay (or stretched fairing) and can use most of Starship's performance. Perhaps 80-125 V2.0 satellites per launch if/when that happens.

Minimum 12 launches a year, more like 24, implies both Florida launch is active and Texas is at max 6 launches a year...
Not Texas. They only get a few launches a year. Starship can do a starlink launch while unable to land or refuel in space.
They won't blow their few launches in texas on starlink. That means they cannot do any futher starship development.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/14/2023 10:00 pm
Do we know, how many Starship launches are needed, and how fast, to deploy the Starlink constellation and satisfy FCC requirement? I asking this, because of the news about selling Phobos & Deimos. Shotwell said also that 100-200 launches are needed before human flight. Probably, they are Starlink flights.

While the FCC's arbitrary partial grant is ridiculous, it makes that problem a lot easier for SpaceX in the interim. For 7500 full-size V2 satellites and assuming ~60 sats per launch, SpaceX only needs about 12 Starship launches per year between H2 2022 and Dec 2028 to hit the 50% milestone. The 50-100% milestone would then require 24/year.

Assuming the FCC actually does grant permission for more Gen2 satellites, you can then simply 4X the above figures to get a worst-case idea of the cadence required. In practice, the staggered grants would take the edge off and require fewer Starship launches per year to hit deployment milestones than if the whole constellation had been approved at once.

Edit: Should add that the situation will become even more favorable if SpaceX quickly develops a proper payload bay (or stretched fairing) and can use most of Starship's performance. Perhaps 80-125 V2.0 satellites per launch if/when that happens.

Minimum 12 launches a year, more like 24, implies both Florida launch is active and Texas is at max 6 launches a year...

Max is at 5 launches per year, but that probably could be adjusted without hassle.  The 500 hours of road closure maximum probably would be much harder to change and would require public comment.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/14/2023 10:45 pm
A value of 60 to 90 launches in 5 year period is 12 or 18 launches a year average.

I do not see that Starship will be a steady state launch rate. Starting at less than 12 and then ending significantly well above 36 per year at the 5 year point (2028). Hence by 2028 total launches should reach above 100 easily. Unless there are a lot of "engineering issues" encountered that requiers multiple years to solve before the launch rate growth occurs.
Bad news: no modern LV has launched more than a total of 10 times in its first 4 years (2.5/yr).
Good news: Starship is designed for rapid full reuse, so maybe they can do 10 launches in the first four year and 100  launches in year 5.

I would love to see a faster ramp. I am an optimist. Maybe SpaceX can ramp more quickly: doubling eash year. Say 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 in years 2024-2028.
Electron did 17 in first 4 years. It is definitely a modern launcher.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/15/2023 12:29 am
It's not one or the other,  Falcon 9 can ease the burden. With last year's 34 starlink launches,  and the 20 Gen 2 mini's per launch.  That is potentially a floor of 680 Falcon 9 satellites a year...

Not the whole constellation,  but it would be a significant help.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 02/15/2023 01:56 am
Do we know, how many Starship launches are needed, and how fast, to deploy the Starlink constellation and satisfy FCC requirement? I asking this, because of the news about selling Phobos & Deimos. Shotwell said also that 100-200 launches are needed before human flight. Probably, they are Starlink flights.

While the FCC's arbitrary partial grant is ridiculous, it makes that problem a lot easier for SpaceX in the interim. For 7500 full-size V2 satellites and assuming ~60 sats per launch, SpaceX only needs about 12 Starship launches per year between H2 2022 and Dec 2028 to hit the 50% milestone. The 50-100% milestone would then require 24/year.

Assuming the FCC actually does grant permission for more Gen2 satellites, you can then simply 4X the above figures to get a worst-case idea of the cadence required. In practice, the staggered grants would take the edge off and require fewer Starship launches per year to hit deployment milestones than if the whole constellation had been approved at once.

Edit: Should add that the situation will become even more favorable if SpaceX quickly develops a proper payload bay (or stretched fairing) and can use most of Starship's performance. Perhaps 80-125 V2.0 satellites per launch if/when that happens.

Minimum 12 launches a year, more like 24, implies both Florida launch is active and Texas is at max 6 launches a year...

Max is at 5 launches per year, but that probably could be adjusted without hassle.  The 500 hours of road closure maximum probably would be much harder to change and would require public comment.
No they cannot adjust it easily. That 5/year was part of the env review. Its not a simple thing to change it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/15/2023 02:02 am
Do we know, how many Starship launches are needed, and how fast, to deploy the Starlink constellation and satisfy FCC requirement? I asking this, because of the news about selling Phobos & Deimos. Shotwell said also that 100-200 launches are needed before human flight. Probably, they are Starlink flights.

While the FCC's arbitrary partial grant is ridiculous, it makes that problem a lot easier for SpaceX in the interim. For 7500 full-size V2 satellites and assuming ~60 sats per launch, SpaceX only needs about 12 Starship launches per year between H2 2022 and Dec 2028 to hit the 50% milestone. The 50-100% milestone would then require 24/year.

Assuming the FCC actually does grant permission for more Gen2 satellites, you can then simply 4X the above figures to get a worst-case idea of the cadence required. In practice, the staggered grants would take the edge off and require fewer Starship launches per year to hit deployment milestones than if the whole constellation had been approved at once.

Edit: Should add that the situation will become even more favorable if SpaceX quickly develops a proper payload bay (or stretched fairing) and can use most of Starship's performance. Perhaps 80-125 V2.0 satellites per launch if/when that happens.

Minimum 12 launches a year, more like 24, implies both Florida launch is active and Texas is at max 6 launches a year...

Max is at 5 launches per year, but that probably could be adjusted without hassle.  The 500 hours of road closure maximum probably would be much harder to change and would require public comment.
No they cannot adjust it easily. That 5/year was part of the env review. Its not a simple thing to change it.

Idle question:

Given everything you have seen of SpaceX over the last 15 years, do you have any actual doubt that they will manage to overcome whatever minor challenges the schedule presents?

What I’m getting at is - do you actually think there is a realistic chance of them not having an operating Gen 2 constellation in place a few years from now?

Come on, seriously. This is not a real risk.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/16/2023 06:19 pm
Moderator:
Off-topic posts 📫 deleted.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/17/2023 03:48 am
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1626358616516366342

Quote
The Starlink team is coordinating with @NZcivildefence and other partners in New Zealand to support connectivity during recovery efforts after Cyclone Gabrielle

Quote
This is only the third time in New Zealand’s history that they have declared a national state of emergency. In times of crisis, access to reliable connectivity is critical to connecting loved ones, alleviating hardship, and keeping people safe

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1626358810205122561

Quote
During the storm, while some users experienced brief outages as a result of ground station failovers, Starlink was able to maintain >99% network uptime across New Zealand
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/17/2023 10:44 am
Do we know, how many Starship launches are needed, and how fast, to deploy the Starlink constellation and satisfy FCC requirement? I asking this, because of the news about selling Phobos & Deimos. Shotwell said also that 100-200 launches are needed before human flight. Probably, they are Starlink flights.

While the FCC's arbitrary partial grant is ridiculous, it makes that problem a lot easier for SpaceX in the interim. For 7500 full-size V2 satellites and assuming ~60 sats per launch, SpaceX only needs about 12 Starship launches per year between H2 2022 and Dec 2028 to hit the 50% milestone. The 50-100% milestone would then require 24/year.

Assuming the FCC actually does grant permission for more Gen2 satellites, you can then simply 4X the above figures to get a worst-case idea of the cadence required. In practice, the staggered grants would take the edge off and require fewer Starship launches per year to hit deployment milestones than if the whole constellation had been approved at once.

Edit: Should add that the situation will become even more favorable if SpaceX quickly develops a proper payload bay (or stretched fairing) and can use most of Starship's performance. Perhaps 80-125 V2.0 satellites per launch if/when that happens.
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1626358616516366342

Quote
The Starlink team is coordinating with @NZcivildefence and other partners in New Zealand to support connectivity during recovery efforts after Cyclone Gabrielle

Quote
This is only the third time in New Zealand’s history that they have declared a national state of emergency. In times of crisis, access to reliable connectivity is critical to connecting loved ones, alleviating hardship, and keeping people safe

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1626358810205122561

Quote
During the storm, while some users experienced brief outages as a result of ground station failovers, Starlink was able to maintain >99% network uptime across New Zealand
Most Hawkes Bay cell towers are down due to lack of power and fibre link outages.
Fallout from this disaster will be cell companies may need to provide better backup systems for some of their towers.
Maybe selects cell towers have backup generator with few days of fuel and satellite link.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: archae86 on 02/22/2023 04:02 am
I got email from Starlink today.  USA standard pricing now diverges from $110/month to two tiers or perhaps three tiers based on capacity.

$120/month for places with limited capacity
$90/month for places with excess capacity
Not clear if there is an in-between case staying at $110/month

Here in Albuquerque, my service speeds have been well below those reported elsewhere since I began service, so it is not a surprise that I was advised that I am in the limited capacity group.

I've been using my Comcast (Xfinity officially) service as a hot backup, but it is just about half the price currently to Starlink, and generally much shorter ping time, far better download speed, and similar upload speed to StarLink.

While I'd rather send my money to SpaceX than to Comcast, this may finally push me to drop my Starlink Service.  I've been on for nigh two years, and generally it has worked, though it had a really bad fainting spell this afternoon, only above five hours before the congestion pricing announcement reached me.

A further savings will be power consumption: the Motorola cable modem I used for Comcast uses about 6 watts, while my Starlink option averages about 38 watts.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2023 05:37 am
Starlink is awesome, but there's obviously nothing wrong with picking something that's a much better deal. Especially if you live in a saturated area.

One benefit of Starlink is it should force companies like Comcast to offer better service whereas before they could rely on being a regional monopoly or near-monopoly. This is true even if the price of Starlink is higher.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: virtuallynathan on 02/22/2023 12:43 pm
I got email from Starlink today.  USA standard pricing now diverges from $110/month to two tiers or perhaps three tiers based on capacity.

$120/month for places with limited capacity
$90/month for places with excess capacity
Not clear if there is an in-between case staying at $110/month

Here in Albuquerque, my service speeds have been well below those reported elsewhere since I began service, so it is not a surprise that I was advised that I am in the limited capacity group.

I've been using my Comcast (Xfinity officially) service as a hot backup, but it is just about half the price currently to Starlink, and generally much shorter ping time, far better download speed, and similar upload speed to StarLink.

While I'd rather send my money to SpaceX than to Comcast, this may finally push me to drop my Starlink Service.  I've been on for nigh two years, and generally it has worked, though it had a really bad fainting spell this afternoon, only above five hours before the congestion pricing announcement reached me.

A further savings will be power consumption: the Motorola cable modem I used for Comcast uses about 6 watts, while my Starlink option averages about 38 watts.

Also, Portability can no longer be purchased, and RV went from $135 to $150
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 02/22/2023 03:30 pm
I feel bad for alot of starlink users. SpaceX oversold their area, tanking their connection rates. Then says its gonna charge them more because they oversold the bandwidth in that area.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 02/22/2023 04:38 pm
While one never likes a price increase, I have to say that so far Starlink has increased its prices somewhat less  percentage-wise than I've had to for my product -- we're in an inflationary period across the board.

As for service, mine has actually been improving, with less drops and more reliable bandwidth, even on Best Effort.

But of course, if one has a better deal with a competitor one should certainly switch. I have no idea why you'd be using an inferior service anyway.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/22/2023 04:45 pm
I feel bad for alot of starlink users. SpaceX oversold their area, tanking their connection rates. Then says its gonna charge them more because they oversold the bandwidth in that area.
They charge what the market will bear. They underestimated demand, so they raised the price to make more money. They did not "oversell" and in fact they do very little "selling".

What you think they should have done instead?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2023 04:52 pm
Clearly we’d be better without Starlink or SpaceX existing. ;)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 02/22/2023 05:28 pm
I feel bad for alot of starlink users. SpaceX oversold their area, tanking their connection rates. Then says its gonna charge them more because they oversold the bandwidth in that area.
They charge what the market will bear. They underestimated demand, so they raised the price to make more money. They did not "oversell" and in fact they do very little "selling".

What you think they should have done instead?

I'll repeat the point I've made before that, at least for Best Effort, Starlink was *very* clear in what I should expect -- and to my surprise has done far better than what they took the trouble to set my expectations at. It's amazing to actually have broadband now, instead of what the geo-sync satellite firms have been selling as broadband.

Of course, I'm just one data point, but in my area I've had one actual extended outage (20 minutes) not caused by heavy rain in the time I've had service. That's much less than what Viasat would deliver.

And speaking of rain-fade, I find it interesting that, although Starlink is subject to it just as much as Viasat was, when Viasat would lose connection it would always take multiple minutes to reacquire signal, and if the signal was still rain faded it would just continually go through a loss of connection and reconnect loop that could last for the length of the storm. Starlink, on the other hand, reacquires signal almost instantly after the strength comes back up, so connectivity through bad weather tends to be choppy but not totally cut. Often streaming video will just buffer right over the breaks, and internet surfing is slower but still doable.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 02/22/2023 07:02 pm
So I wonder where the the "excess capacity" areas are.   

I am a starlink user and I live rural.    I know all my neighbors in a 3 mile radius.   I am the only starlink user.   In a 8 mile radius, there are less than 50 houses.  In a 20 mile radius you'll find a town of 30K.

Yet my bill is going up.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/23/2023 04:09 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1628801563824103425

Quote
If @itsmoislam is correct, SpaceX is now more of a satellite company than a launch company. At least on a revenue basis.

https://secretspacenewsletter.beehiiv.com/p/predicting-spacexs-2023-revenue

As a key motivation for Starlink was to generate revenue for SpaceX’s Mars ambitions, interesting that this year Starlink revenue may exceed launch revenue.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: hplan on 02/23/2023 04:44 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1628801563824103425

Quote
If @itsmoislam is correct, SpaceX is now more of a satellite company than a launch company. At least on a revenue basis.

https://secretspacenewsletter.beehiiv.com/p/predicting-spacexs-2023-revenue

As a key motivation for Starlink was to generate revenue for SpaceX’s Mars ambitions, interesting that this year Starlink revenue may exceed launch revenue.

The linked document estimates an astonishing 2.5x revenue growth for SpaceX for 2023 compared to the prior year.

If the estimates are accurate, with 11.5 billion in total SpaceX revenue in 2023, the cost of the Starship development program is almost an afterthought. Starlink revenue alone seems sufficient to fund Starlink plus Starship development.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/23/2023 05:14 pm
Yup, and the valuation of SpaceX has long reflected this.

Starship is super high profile due to all the enthusiast analysis possible.

BUT the lion’s share of SpaceX is actually the manufacturing of these Starlink satellites in Seattle. There’s like one SpaceX building in Seattle where most of the satellites (in terms of number AND mass) of the world are built and most of the value of SpaceX is created, and I don’t know if we’ve ever seen inside of it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tomness on 02/23/2023 05:35 pm
Yup, and the valuation of SpaceX has long reflected this.

Starship is super high profile due to all the enthusiast analysis possible.

BUT the lion’s share of SpaceX is actually the manufacturing of these Starlink satellites in Seattle. There’s like one SpaceX building in Seattle where most of the satellites (in terms of number AND mass) of the world are built and most of the value of SpaceX is created, and I don’t know if we’ve ever seen inside of it.

Probably never will,  IP and ITAR are a hella of a drug.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: tbellman on 02/23/2023 07:03 pm
If the estimates are accurate, with 11.5 billion in total SpaceX revenue in 2023, the cost of the Starship development program is almost an afterthought. Starlink revenue alone seems sufficient to fund Starlink plus Starship development.

Just remember that revenue alone is not alone to fund Starship development; profit is needed.  I.e, the available funds will be significantly lower than $11.5B, as the revenue also needs to pay for satellites (and launching them), user terminals, ground stations, Internet transit costs (i.e. paying other ISPs for access to the rest of Internet), user support, et.c, et.c.

Now, I do think Starlink has a reasonable chance to be profitable, perhaps even very profitable.  And in particular I believe the lowered launch costs by using Starship for Starlink will be enough to pay off the development costs of Starship after some years.  But I think calling the Starship development costs an afterthought is a bit of an exaggeration.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ZachF on 02/23/2023 07:24 pm
Yup, and the valuation of SpaceX has long reflected this.

Starship is super high profile due to all the enthusiast analysis possible.

BUT the lion’s share of SpaceX is actually the manufacturing of these Starlink satellites in Seattle. There’s like one SpaceX building in Seattle where most of the satellites (in terms of number AND mass) of the world are built and most of the value of SpaceX is created, and I don’t know if we’ve ever seen inside of it.

It really is crazy the level of domination spacex has achieved.

Last year they sent twice the DV adjusted tonnage to space that the rest of the world did, this year it looks like SpaceX will beat the entire earth by a factor of 3 or 4.

The rocket doing this is not only the cheapest option in the world, it’s now statistically the most reliable rocket ever *and* currently likely has the highest profit margins.

SpaceX is now sending more people up to space than the rest of the world combined.

…and they are the largest satellite producer as well whether measured by tonnage, number, throughput, or even watts of panels.

It’s nuts… it’s also only going to get even more nuts if starship works, there will probably be a solid period of time where SpaceX is lifting 90%+ of earths space bound mass and perhaps building 80%+ of it to boot.  :o

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ZachF on 02/23/2023 07:26 pm
If the estimates are accurate, with 11.5 billion in total SpaceX revenue in 2023, the cost of the Starship development program is almost an afterthought. Starlink revenue alone seems sufficient to fund Starlink plus Starship development.

Just remember that revenue alone is not alone to fund Starship development; profit is needed.  I.e, the available funds will be significantly lower than $11.5B, as the revenue also needs to pay for satellites (and launching them), user terminals, ground stations, Internet transit costs (i.e. paying other ISPs for access to the rest of Internet), user support, et.c, et.c.

Now, I do think Starlink has a reasonable chance to be profitable, perhaps even very profitable.  And in particular I believe the lowered launch costs by using Starship for Starlink will be enough to pay off the development costs of Starship after some years.  But I think calling the Starship development costs an afterthought is a bit of an exaggeration.

According to Gwynne Starlink went into the black Q4 last year.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: virtuallynathan on 02/23/2023 07:46 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1628801563824103425

Quote
If @itsmoislam is correct, SpaceX is now more of a satellite company than a launch company. At least on a revenue basis.

https://secretspacenewsletter.beehiiv.com/p/predicting-spacexs-2023-revenue

As a key motivation for Starlink was to generate revenue for SpaceX’s Mars ambitions, interesting that this year Starlink revenue may exceed launch revenue.

I highly doubt they have that many Biz subs, but it’s a reasonable revenue guess to take into account Maritime/Aviation/etc.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Reynold on 02/23/2023 07:54 pm
I highly doubt they have that many Biz subs, but it’s a reasonable revenue guess to take into account Maritime/Aviation/etc.

Its anecdotal, but I have friends who live in rural TN who moved there expecting to get hard line internet.  That never materialized (what a shock), and they MUST have internet to work remotely, and regular Starlink was not available in their area.  They bit the bullet and bought business service to get it anyway. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/23/2023 11:21 pm
Yup, and the valuation of SpaceX has long reflected this.

Starship is super high profile due to all the enthusiast analysis possible.

BUT the lion’s share of SpaceX is actually the manufacturing of these Starlink satellites in Seattle. There’s like one SpaceX building in Seattle where most of the satellites (in terms of number AND mass) of the world are built and most of the value of SpaceX is created, and I don’t know if we’ve ever seen inside of it.

Terminal manufacturing likely will have an equal or larger footprint than satellite manufacturing:  probably roughly 1 million square feet in Hawthorne and Bastrop by the start of April.  A huge advantage of SpaceX is that they are nailing the ramp up of terminal production despite having a lot of custom fiddly parts.  Never forget the ground segment!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/24/2023 01:13 am
Yup, and the valuation of SpaceX has long reflected this.

Starship is super high profile due to all the enthusiast analysis possible.

BUT the lion’s share of SpaceX is actually the manufacturing of these Starlink satellites in Seattle. There’s like one SpaceX building in Seattle where most of the satellites (in terms of number AND mass) of the world are built and most of the value of SpaceX is created, and I don’t know if we’ve ever seen inside of it.

It really is crazy the level of domination spacex has achieved.

Last year they sent twice the DV adjusted tonnage to space that the rest of the world did, this year it looks like SpaceX will beat the entire earth by a factor of 3 or 4.

The rocket doing this is not only the cheapest option in the world, it’s now statistically the most reliable rocket ever *and* currently likely has the highest profit margins.

SpaceX is now sending more people up to space than the rest of the world combined.

…and they are the largest satellite producer as well whether measured by tonnage, number, throughput, or even watts of panels.

It’s nuts… it’s also only going to get even more nuts if starship works, there will probably be a solid period of time where SpaceX is lifting 90%+ of earths space bound mass and perhaps building 80%+ of it to boot.  :o

Well, once Starship is launching daily they will be putting ~50 thousand tonnes of payload into orbit annually. That will be about 98% of global payload mass to orbit (assuming ~1000 tonnes for everyone else combined).

The exponential part of the curve has not even begun yet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/24/2023 04:40 am
Can someone explain to me the advantages of the Starlink architecture over that of AST?

According to my limited understanding, AST is offering similar bandwidth to Starlink, with similar latency, using far fewer, but much larger, satellites. And as a result of the size and power of the satellite, they are able to provide this internet access without the need of a satellite dish. In fact, it is available directly to a mobile phone.

Now, I am sure I am misunderstanding a lot here, but on the face of it, is this not a better model that Starlink should potentially pivot to? Meaning a fifth the number of satellites, but each five times as powerful? And no need for expensive terminals.

What am I missing, broadly speaking? I want to be missing a lot, as I can’t believe SpaceX would have gone for an inferior architecture.

I suspect the answer lies in AST overselling the capabilities of their system, but would be interested in some insight on this. So fire away please.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: novo2044 on 02/24/2023 06:45 pm
Can someone explain to me the advantages of the Starlink architecture over that of AST?

According to my limited understanding, AST is offering similar bandwidth to Starlink, with similar latency, using far fewer, but much larger, satellites. And as a result of the size and power of the satellite, they are able to provide this internet access without the need of a satellite dish. In fact, it is available directly to a mobile phone.

Now, I am sure I am misunderstanding a lot here, but on the face of it, is this not a better model that Starlink should potentially pivot to? Meaning a fifth the number of satellites, but each five times as powerful? And no need for expensive terminals.

What am I missing, broadly speaking? I want to be missing a lot, as I can’t believe SpaceX would have gone for an inferior architecture.

I suspect the answer lies in AST overselling the capabilities of their system, but would be interested in some insight on this. So fire away please.
Was going to write a longer post but I think the simplest way to understand it is that AST doesn't actually have a constellation, customers, or commercial service at this time.  I believe they have a grand total of 2 satellites in orbit.  Their proposed satellites will be much bigger with more power and bandwidth per unit than Starlink, but there are many tradeoffs from a performance, production, operation, and maintenance perspective when it comes to a moderate number of large birds vs many smaller ones.  They also are advertising 4G/5G speeds which aren't quite the same as Starlink provides. 

There's nothing physics wise that prevents phones from communicating with satellites, Starlink is proposing something similar though at much lower bandwidth.  But AST hasn't even done a meaningful demonstrations yet so it remains to be seen how they will handle hundreds or thousands of customers per satellite in a real world environment.  (Others have done the math, and I am very dubious myself).  It will also cost billions to build, launch, and service their proposed constellation, and a large chunk of that is funding their primary competitor.  Satellite constellation operators have a long history of going bankrupt for a reason.  The devil is in the details and execution
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 03/01/2023 04:36 pm
There's nothing physics wise that prevents phones from communicating with satellites,
From the point of view of physics, of course, there are more problems due to geography  :D.
Physics says that the attenuation of the radio signal depends on the distance , so in order to receive 50..100 Mbps in 5G, a mobile phone with a size of an antenna ca. ​​1 cm2 must be at a distance of 500..1000 meters from the base station. And Starlink had to make an antenna with a size of 1000+ cm2 to ensure such a speed ..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: seb21051 on 03/01/2023 05:39 pm
And we know, given the choice, that SX prefers high quantities of smaller things than the reverse. For example rocket engines. Better redundancy, for one advantage.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: vsatman on 03/01/2023 06:58 pm
Can someone explain to me the advantages of the Starlink architecture over that of AST?

According to my limited understanding, AST is offering similar bandwidth to Starlink, with similar latency, using far fewer, but much larger, satellites. And as a result of the size and power of the satellite, they are able to provide this internet access without the need of a satellite dish. In fact, it is available directly to a mobile phone.

Now, I am sure I am misunderstanding a lot here, but on the face of it, is this not a better model that Starlink should potentially pivot to? Meaning a fifth the number of satellites, but each five times as powerful? And no need for expensive terminals.

What am I missing, broadly speaking? I want to be missing a lot, as I can’t believe SpaceX would have gone for an inferior architecture.

I suspect the answer lies in AST overselling the capabilities of their system, but would be interested in some insight on this. So fire away please.
Was going to write a longer post but I think the simplest way to understand it is that AST doesn't actually have a constellation, customers, or commercial service at this time.  I believe they have a grand total of 2 satellites in orbit.  Their proposed satellites will be much bigger with more power and bandwidth per unit than Starlink, but there are many tradeoffs from a performance, production, operation, and maintenance perspective when it comes to a moderate number of large birds vs many smaller ones.  They also are advertising 4G/5G speeds which aren't quite the same as Starlink provides. 

There's nothing physics wise that prevents phones from communicating with satellites, Starlink is proposing something similar though at much lower bandwidth.  But AST hasn't even done a meaningful demonstrations yet so it remains to be seen how they will handle hundreds or thousands of customers per satellite in a real world environment.  (Others have done the math, and I am very dubious myself).  It will also cost billions to build, launch, and service their proposed constellation, and a large chunk of that is funding their primary competitor.  Satellite constellation operators have a long history of going bankrupt for a reason.  The devil is in the details and execution

If we talk about the service of direct communication with a mobile phone via satellite, then the main problem with AST or Starlink is that they do not have rights to work (or frequencies) in any country in the world. They can only operate in the ocean beyond 12 miles from shore. To work in any country, they must offer their service to a local mobile operator (who has right to use frequencies) , who will decide how much % of the income received from the Starlink service he is ready to give to the satellite operator. At the same time, mobile operators are constantly investing millions of dollars in expanding their rural networks.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: novo2044 on 03/01/2023 09:07 pm
There's nothing physics wise that prevents phones from communicating with satellites,
From the point of view of physics, of course, there are more problems due to geography  :D.
Physics says that the attenuation of the radio signal depends on the distance , so in order to receive 50..100 Mbps in 5G, a mobile phone with a size of an antenna ca. 1 cm2 must be at a distance of 500..1000 meters from the base station. And Starlink had to make an antenna with a size of 1000+ cm2 to ensure such a speed ..
I mean there a lot of factors, obvious and otherwise, that play into it.  AST claim they will have more power, much, much larger antennae, better beam forming and accuracy, the ability to connect to multiple satellites simultaneously, etc.  Is that enough?  I'm skeptical, as are many others, but I thought the whole landing on a boat thing was pretty stupid at first too.  I'd be shocked if they didn't go bankrupt but I'm open to being surprised.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/03/2023 03:01 pm
https://twitter.com/astrolisa/status/1631672533660336129

Quote
SpaceX's Starlink went from zero to half of all active satellites in less than four years.

Half. Of. All. Active. Satellites.

h/t to @planet4589 and @sundogplanets

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/satellites-spacex-problem-space-pollution
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/03/2023 04:31 pm
https://twitter.com/astrolisa/status/1631672533660336129

Quote
SpaceX's Starlink went from zero to half of all active satellites in less than four years.

Half. Of. All. Active. Satellites.

h/t to @planet4589 and @sundogplanets

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/satellites-spacex-problem-space-pollution

Article says this:
Quote
SpaceX has been launching Starlink satellites since 2019 with the goal of bringing broadband internet to remote parts of the globe. And for just as long, astronomers have been warning that the bright satellites could mess up their view of the cosmos by leaving streaks on telescope images as they glide past (SN: 3/12/20).
…but is inaccurate and misleading. SpaceX actually started launching in 2018 with the Tintins, and the astronomers didn’t start making noise about this until AFTER the first large launch in 2019. The overall astronomy community was dismissive of Starlink until it was actually flying; they weren’t warning beforehand (or even concurrently). Getting the order of these events right is important IMO.


(In a way this actually bolsters the idea that these issues need to be considered more pro-actively… but also with a more solutions-centered orientation. Such as pointing out that the reason Hubble has Starlinks photobombing the pictures is because Hubble’s orbit has decayed and needs to be reboosted. The only concrete solution hinted at was limiting the number of satellites, whereas the positive-sum solution like reboosting Hubble—which NASA is studying right now—is not mentioned.)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: hplan on 03/04/2023 09:04 pm
One estimate put SpaceX's Starlink revenue at $5.5 billion this year, with 4,000 v1 satellites in orbit.

The v2 satellites are supposed to have about 8x the bandwidth, and the plans are to have 43,000 in orbit at some point. But even just filling out the currently-approved 7,500 satellites, that's 15 times the current bandwidth.

Does that mean SpaceX's Starlink annual revenue could be more than $82 billion in a few years? (That would give Starlink revenue somewhere between that of T-Mobile and Verizon.)


Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: 2megs on 03/06/2023 11:40 am
... But even just filling out the currently-approved 7,500 satellites, that's 15 times the current bandwidth.

Does that mean SpaceX's Starlink annual revenue could be more than $82 billion in a few years? ...

Have a look at https://www.starlink.com/map.

The light blue areas are under-capacity. Adding capacity doesn't add any revenue there, because there's not enough demand for the capacity they already have. Marketing might be a better expenditure.

The dark blue areas have legal/economic/regulatory hurdles. Adding capacity adds no revenue at present. Local lawyers and lobbyists might be a better expenditure. (But note $100/month exceeds the per-capita median income in some of those areas.)

Adding capacity should provide a proportional increase in revenue only from the medium blue areas, and then only until a given cell turns light blue.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/06/2023 02:15 pm
While true, the most efficient way to add new capacity in waitlisted areas is to target the orbits that spend the most time over those areas. That would be the 43 degree shell that spaceX is currently targeting with the 5-x and 6-x launches.

More interesting to me, when 2-8 launches, SpaceX should have enough satellites to fill out every other plane in Shell 2. Providing full coverage to areas like Alaska, Northern Canada, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. After 2-8, it looks like they will switch back to completing shell 3 for the polar regions. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 03/13/2023 01:59 am
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/iran-asks-international-regulators-to-pressure-u-s-to-stop-spacex-starlinks-unlicensed-use-in-iran/

Quote
The Iranian government is asking the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to intercede with U.S. regulators to force SpaceX from continuing to allow the use of Starlink satellite broadband terminals on Iranian territory.

The Iranian request to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) comes after numerous written communications sent to SpaceX and to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) since October saying that Starlink needs a license to operate in Iran, as it does in most other nations.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/13/2023 02:48 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1635292849150529537

Quote
Next panel up at #SATShow is about sat-to-cell, with:

ST Engineering iDirect CEO Don Claussen

Iridium CEO Matt Desch

SpaceX VP of Starlink enterprise sales Jonathan Hofeller

Lynk Global CEO Charles Miller

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1635301736331227137

Quote
Hofeller: Starlink now has "well over a million users," and SpaceX is building 6 next-generation satellite per day, as well as 1000s of user terminals daily.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: psionedge on 03/13/2023 04:14 pm
Is anyone keeping a running guesstimate of total manufacturing and launch costs for the Starlink fleet?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: philw1776 on 03/15/2023 12:53 pm
General public reaction to Starlink:
Over on Cruise Critic a website with forums dedicated to cruising, the Viking Ocean pages I read are very excited about Starlink being installed across their popular ocean fleet.

Editorial: Good to know that previous fears of Skynet have abated.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: spacenut on 03/15/2023 02:19 pm
SpaceX still can grow a lot in Australian outback, Brazil and other areas of South America.  Some African countries might add Starlink for schools, hospitals and such eventually.  The Middle East has money, like Saudi Arabia and can easily add Starlink.  However many Middle Eastern countries might have a problem with some people using it for war purposes.  Indonesia would be a good add.  Lots of people and islands, and they indicated they wanted a Starship launch facility.  Many in the US might buy them for RV's and boats.  So, I could foresee SpaceX could get 10 million customers within 5 or so years.  That translates to $1 billion in revenue for every million customers not counting launch revenue. 

I get approximately $1 billion for every 1 million customers.  $110 a month for 12 months = $1,320.  $1,320 a year for 1 million customers = $1.320 billion in total profit.  You have to deduct the cost of the satellites and launch costs.  However, using new rockets for NASA, the Space Force, or other satellite operators pays for the booster on the first flight.  So, the cost of a Starlink launch would be the second stage (they reuse the fairings too) and the satellites themselves.  Say all that costs $320 million, thus $1 billion profit from 1 million customers.  Eventually all satellites will be launched and Starlink use would be pure profit.  100 million customers would be $100 billion in profit.  This is why many people say Elon Musk will be the world's first trillionaire. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 03/15/2023 02:25 pm
SpaceX still can grow a lot in Australian outback, Brazil and other areas of South America.  Some African countries might add Starlink for schools, hospitals and such eventually.  The Middle East has money, like Saudi Arabia and can easily add Starlink.  However many Middle Eastern countries might have a problem with some people using it for war purposes.  Indonesia would be a good add.  Lots of people and islands, and they indicated they wanted a Starship launch facility.  Many in the US might buy them for RV's and boats.  So, I could foresee SpaceX could get 10 million customers within 5 or so years.  That translates to $1 billion in revenue for every million customers not counting launch revenue. 

I get approximately $1 billion for every 1 million customers.  $110 a month for 12 months = $1,320.  $1,320 a year for 1 million customers = $1.320 billion in total profit.  You have to deduct the cost of the satellites and launch costs.  However, using new rockets for NASA, the Space Force, or other satellite operators pays for the booster on the first flight.  So, the cost of a Starlink launch would be the second stage (they reuse the fairings too) and the satellites themselves.  Say all that costs $320 million, thus $1 billion profit from 1 million customers.  Eventually all satellites will be launched and Starlink use would be pure profit.  100 million customers would be $100 billion in profit.  This is why many people say Elon Musk will be the world's first trillionaire.

I know that this is napkin math, but you need to break it down into the various product lines and geographies.  $110 a month might be close to the blended average, but it might be quite far off.  In the end, I don't think SpaceX envisions charging as much as $110 for the consumer product because they will want to compete against DSL service.  And the progression of costs on the terminal is important to track.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: spacenut on 03/15/2023 03:28 pm
The Starlink cost per month for residential customers is $110 a month is on the internet and Starlink website.  RV cost is higher, $150/month and $200/month for global access.  Yes, it is quick and napkin type math based on what we know about Starlink using the lowest customer cost which is $110. 

People will pay $110 a month for the service, especially if they can't get any other service in remote areas.  DSL is slow in comparison per my son-in-law who lives in a rural area of Alabama.  They use Starlink.  Terminals and set up are one time costs. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 03/15/2023 04:02 pm
The Starlink cost per month for residential customers is $110 a month is on the internet and Starlink website.  RV cost is higher, $150/month and $200/month for global access.  Yes, it is quick and napkin type math based on what we know about Starlink using the lowest customer cost which is $110. 

People will pay $110 a month for the service, especially if they can't get any other service in remote areas.  DSL is slow in comparison per my son-in-law who lives in a rural area of Alabama.  They use Starlink.  Terminals and set up are one time costs.

I think that you need to update your Starlink pricing.  In most areas of the world, the consumer price is a lot less than $110.  Even in the US, there are parts that are as low as $90 a month.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RDMM2081 on 03/15/2023 05:19 pm
This is a recent update I received from Starlink regarding pricing changes which may clear some of this up.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/15/2023 06:08 pm
If Project Kuiper. succeeds, over the next few years I could see a price war happening. Even in the US, the higher $110 price will most likely not last forever. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2023 06:22 pm
But global costs are adjusted by region, so the average cost may still be around $100/month.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2023 07:03 pm
If Project Kuiper. succeeds, over the next few years I could see a price war happening. Even in the US, the higher $110 price will most likely not last forever.
I hope the competition helps lower the price. Then again, Amazon actually doesn’t have enough money to put into Kuiper to win a price war. Full Starlink is like 80,000 tons. Launch *alone* using Vulcan would probably cost around $400B.

Not until full reuse happens for non-Starship could Amazon do a price war and have even a theoretical chance of winning. Amazon only holds about $58B in cash as of the end of 2022.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/15/2023 07:04 pm
Competition is more than just who has a better system. If Kuiper is cheaper, people will sign up for it... even if they cannot support the same numbers that Starlink can. It will shine in areas that are wait listed as an alternative, and could siphon off users in areas that are not at capacity and do not have high population densities. If it succeeds, it will put pressure on prices.

My point, Starlink with competition will need to stay price completive. That means, prices will go down. You cannot count on the mean Starlink price to remain at $100 a month. 

btw. Just so we are clear, given enough funding, even a brick can be made to fly.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ulm_atms on 03/16/2023 10:00 pm
So does anyone know what is up with the V2 sats?  Starting to see news that they are starting to lower their orbits(not uniformed looking either) after hanging out around 390km for some days...?

https://twitter.com/starlinkinsider/status/1636289350366543872
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/17/2023 12:08 am
Well Jonathan McDowell, whose plot was used for the tweet thinks its too early to tell and we need to wait a few days to see what is happening.

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1636375209367457797?t=6sC5DOWin4zVOUOwN9c_4Q&s=19

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: deadman1204 on 03/17/2023 04:02 pm
Competition is more than just who has a better system. If Kuiper is cheaper, people will sign up for it... even if they cannot support the same numbers that Starlink can. It will shine in areas that are wait listed as an alternative, and could siphon off users in areas that are not at capacity and do not have high population densities. If it succeeds, it will put pressure on prices.

My point, Starlink with competition will need to stay price completive. That means, prices will go down. You cannot count on the mean Starlink price to remain at $100 a month. 

btw. Just so we are clear, given enough funding, even a brick can be made to fly.
I Agree, competition is always about so much more than just technically better. If both products are good enough, then marketing can play a bigger role than technical specs can.
Starlink is also hampered by the dual facts that musk wants to be the face of his companies, and that he has decided to become a very politically polarizing person, which translates to public perceptions of his companies (starlink).
Thus amazon has a big leg up that musk seemingly intentionally has given them
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ZachF on 03/20/2023 02:54 pm
Competition is more than just who has a better system. If Kuiper is cheaper, people will sign up for it... even if they cannot support the same numbers that Starlink can. It will shine in areas that are wait listed as an alternative, and could siphon off users in areas that are not at capacity and do not have high population densities. If it succeeds, it will put pressure on prices.

My point, Starlink with competition will need to stay price completive. That means, prices will go down. You cannot count on the mean Starlink price to remain at $100 a month. 

btw. Just so we are clear, given enough funding, even a brick can be made to fly.

It’s going to be hard for Kuiper to really compete with Starlink when it’s cost basis is higher even discounting the disadvantages in economies of scale.

Honestly, on top of this the financial strength of Amazon is completely overrated, IMHO… they lost money last year are cash flow negative and printing shares to cover everything, and 30%+ margins for data services will probably end up being a zero interest rate phenomenon. That’s something begging for commoditization using history as a context.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: cookiejar5 on 03/31/2023 08:15 pm
Received our RV Starlink today. Plugged it in and created an internet in about 5 minutes and getting 30 down and 7 up in Mesa AZ.

Took it home to Queen Valley AZ and this morning getting 162 down and 9.5 up from my ipad via speedtest
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tomness on 03/31/2023 09:10 pm
Received our RV Starlink today. Plugged it in and created an internet in about 5 minutes and getting 30 down and 7 up in Mesa AZ.

Congrats,  but damn gone are the days of 300 down/ 30 up with them losing out on FCC Rural Internet Grant.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 03/31/2023 09:26 pm
Received our RV Starlink today. Plugged it in and created an internet in about 5 minutes and getting 30 down and 7 up in Mesa AZ.

Congrats,  but damn gone are the days of 300 down/ 30 up with them losing out on FCC Rural Internet Grant.

RV gets deprioritized behind business and residential service.

I'm getting 100 down and 10 up on Gen 1 hardware with residential service during peak hours.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tomness on 03/31/2023 09:36 pm
Received our RV Starlink today. Plugged it in and created an internet in about 5 minutes and getting 30 down and 7 up in Mesa AZ.

Congrats,  but damn gone are the days of 300 down/ 30 up with them losing out on FCC Rural Internet Grant.

RV gets deprioritized behind business and residential service.

I'm getting 100 down and 10 up on Gen 1 hardware with residential service during peak hours.
Nice,  I am going sell my gen 1 kit to my cousin and I can only turn on RV at their place.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 04/01/2023 02:53 am
Just got upgraded from Best Effort to full Residential day before yesterday. Can't really tell a difference since Best Effort was fine for my needs, but it does look like it shaved a good 30 ms off of my average latency. Just checking things right now at 22:50 Eastern Daylight Time gives me 37 ms and 63 Mbps down 10 Mbps up. I know from experience that that will jump up considerably after midnight.

Still pretty happy with the whole thing.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: seb21051 on 04/02/2023 04:19 pm
Just noticed on the Wikipedia Falcon9 missions page, that Starlink 3-5 mission will fly 46 satellites to Sun Synchronous Orbit. Seems odd. First time my seeing Starlink to SSO.

April 2023[513]   F9 B5 ♺
B1061.13[535]   VSFB,
SLC-4E   Starlink Group 3-5 (~46 satellites)   SSO   SpaceX
A West Coast Starlink launch to a 560 km Sun-synchronous orbit at an inclination of 97.6°.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches

It is confirmed by NextSpaceFlight's entry for this mission:

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/7115
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: GewoonLukas_ on 04/02/2023 04:27 pm
Yes, Starlink Group 3 satellites are being launched to SSO. They have launched 4 previous such missions.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: seb21051 on 04/02/2023 04:35 pm
From what I read, a Sun-synchronous orbit is useful for imaging, reconnaissance, and weather satellites.

What exactly is the purpose of putting Starlink sats in SSO?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Alexphysics on 04/02/2023 04:40 pm
They're just going to a polar orbit, this is the fifth mission going into this shell. Nothing weird, just more Starlinks going up into orbit.

Also, there's already a thread for this mission here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58515.msg2469599#msg2469599

I suggest you post your questions there
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/02/2023 04:42 pm
From what I read, a Sun-synchronous orbit is useful for imaging, reconnaissance, and weather satellites.

What exactly is the purpose of putting Starlink sats in SSO?

They need near polar orbits to cover the polar areas of the globe. I think they uses SSO so that the sun angle can be fixed and thus these satellites would not need complex tracking of the sun and would get maximum power out of the panels in this configuration.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: seb21051 on 04/02/2023 05:56 pm
 Also, there's already a thread for this mission here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58515.msg2469599#msg2469599

I suggest you post your questions there
[/quote]

This thread actually had its start in Missions, but was subsequently moved here by someone.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 04/06/2023 07:50 am
18 Group 4-10 satellites appear to be migrating from Shell 4 (de facto inclination 53.22 deg) to Shell 1 (de facto inclination 53.05 deg). STARLINK-3680 is the leader. Its inclination (the red line) has been steadily decreasing since mid-January. It is 53.11 now, 65% of the way.

All 18 satellites are in the same plane which has been replaced by 20 Group 4-37 satellites.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/23/2023 10:34 am
https://twitter.com/starlinkinsider/status/1650080757329588232

Quote
Some more context:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/12vt7y5/dishy_vs_freezing_spray/

Quote
Something different. Had a chat with this dude, who is a fisherman in the Bering Sea. They just had a huge cold front move through whilst out at sea, and this is how Dishy ended up. The heating just couldn't keep up, he froze and they lost service. Once de-iced, internet resumed as per normal. Fisherman in the Northern hemisphere reckon Starlink has been a real game changer for them. Have left the Reddit user in the pics. Go check him out and share the love.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 04/23/2023 12:44 pm
This is where a dome with the Starlink inside makes sense. The heat inside might even be enough to the keep the dome ice free.

https://twitter.com/starlinkinsider/status/1650080757329588232

Quote
Some more context:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/12vt7y5/dishy_vs_freezing_spray/

Quote
Something different. Had a chat with this dude, who is a fisherman in the Bering Sea. They just had a huge cold front move through whilst out at sea, and this is how Dishy ended up. The heating just couldn't keep up, he froze and they lost service. Once de-iced, internet resumed as per normal. Fisherman in the Northern hemisphere reckon Starlink has been a real game changer for them. Have left the Reddit user in the pics. Go check him out and share the love.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/23/2023 02:27 pm
A dome would have a larger surface area requiring even more heat to keep ice free.

Betcha during all of this,  the crew was out chipping ice off our everything top side.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 04/23/2023 03:41 pm
Yes but the vertical sides mean it's harder to cling to vs the almost horizontal dishy - plus the heat inside one of those domes can build up. Mine gets warm-ish when the kit is in use.

But yes, sledgehammers on the rest of the topsides would be the order of the day and shed some weight.

A dome would have a larger surface area requiring even more heat to keep ice free.

Betcha during all of this,  the crew was out chipping ice off our everything top side.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DigitalMan on 04/23/2023 03:55 pm
It was interesting watching the 'Alone' series one season where they were in the Arctic once winter set in you could see the icicles right above their fire pits.

:-(
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jackvancouver on 04/23/2023 10:36 pm
Hey, this means you can have a 24/7 livestream of Deadliest Catch...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: litton4 on 04/24/2023 09:29 am
Hey, this means you can have a 24/7 livestream of Deadliest Catch...

I think we will be getting that from BC next year, maybe?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Mandella on 05/03/2023 02:03 pm
So after being upgraded to regular Residential from Best Effort in late March, today I received the following Update:

Quote
Good news! Your Starlink subscription will remain unlimited and will no longer be deprioritized after 1 TB of data use.

We’ve updated our Terms and Conditions to reflect this change. See the Starlink Fair Use policy to learn how we manage our network for the benefit of all customers.

We’ve also introduced the ability to easily change your service plan on your account portal or the Starlink app. There are four types of service plans available:

    Standard for typical household use (your current service plan) 
    Priority for businesses and other high demand users (visit Business for more info)
    Mobile for portable land use, such as RVs and camping (visit Roam for more info)
    Mobile Priority for maritime, in-motion, and high demand mobile use (visit Maritime or Mobility for more info)


Learn more about the Starlink service plans here. 

Which is cool, if unexpected. I'm assuming they're generally going back to uncapped for all residential (now called Standard I see) plans? Did everybody else get upgraded?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 05/03/2023 02:40 pm
So after being upgraded to regular Residential from Best Effort in late March, today I received the following Update:

Quote
Good news! Your Starlink subscription will remain unlimited and will no longer be deprioritized after 1 TB of data use.

We’ve updated our Terms and Conditions to reflect this change. See the Starlink Fair Use policy to learn how we manage our network for the benefit of all customers.

We’ve also introduced the ability to easily change your service plan on your account portal or the Starlink app. There are four types of service plans available:

    Standard for typical household use (your current service plan) 
    Priority for businesses and other high demand users (visit Business for more info)
    Mobile for portable land use, such as RVs and camping (visit Roam for more info)
    Mobile Priority for maritime, in-motion, and high demand mobile use (visit Maritime or Mobility for more info)


Learn more about the Starlink service plans here. 

Which is cool, if unexpected. I'm assuming they're generally going back to uncapped for all residential (now called Standard I see) plans? Did everybody else get upgraded?

Yes, I did
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/03/2023 03:41 pm
So after being upgraded to regular Residential from Best Effort in late March, today I received the following Update:

Quote
Good news! Your Starlink subscription will remain unlimited and will no longer be deprioritized after 1 TB of data use.

We’ve updated our Terms and Conditions to reflect this change. See the Starlink Fair Use policy to learn how we manage our network for the benefit of all customers.

We’ve also introduced the ability to easily change your service plan on your account portal or the Starlink app. There are four types of service plans available:

    Standard for typical household use (your current service plan) 
    Priority for businesses and other high demand users (visit Business for more info)
    Mobile for portable land use, such as RVs and camping (visit Roam for more info)
    Mobile Priority for maritime, in-motion, and high demand mobile use (visit Maritime or Mobility for more info)


Learn more about the Starlink service plans here. 

Which is cool, if unexpected. I'm assuming they're generally going back to uncapped for all residential (now called Standard I see) plans? Did everybody else get upgraded?
Yeah, it's a thing: https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-removes-1tb-fair-use-starlink-standard-plan/

I can only assume this is due to bottlenecks being eased due to newer satellites coming into service, such as the satellite link birds.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 05/03/2023 04:44 pm
Which is cool, if unexpected. I'm assuming they're generally going back to uncapped for all residential (now called Standard I see) plans? Did everybody else get upgraded?
I did. I suspect they returned everyone that wasn't hogging bandwidth to the previous standard. The problem with unlimited is that a few hogs can ruin it for everyone. Adding limits for everyone and then selectively removing the limits seems like a clever solution to that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: mn on 05/03/2023 07:23 pm
Which is cool, if unexpected. I'm assuming they're generally going back to uncapped for all residential (now called Standard I see) plans? Did everybody else get upgraded?
I did. I suspect they returned everyone that wasn't hogging bandwidth to the previous standard. The problem with unlimited is that a few hogs can ruin it for everyone. Adding limits for everyone and then selectively removing the limits seems like a clever solution to that.

A better solution would be not to advertise 'unlimited' in the first place.

Nobody is forcing any company to offer unlimited, just start with a limit that covers 97% of the users and you know you can handle.

it just creates all the back and forth mess for absolutely no reason.

rant over, now back to regularly scheduled programming.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/03/2023 11:35 pm
Which is cool, if unexpected. I'm assuming they're generally going back to uncapped for all residential (now called Standard I see) plans? Did everybody else get upgraded?
I did. I suspect they returned everyone that wasn't hogging bandwidth to the previous standard. The problem with unlimited is that a few hogs can ruin it for everyone. Adding limits for everyone and then selectively removing the limits seems like a clever solution to that.

A better solution would be not to advertise 'unlimited' in the first place.

Nobody is forcing any company to offer unlimited, just start with a limit that covers 97% of the users and you know you can handle.

it just creates all the back and forth mess for absolutely no reason.

rant over, now back to regularly scheduled programming.

An observation: So much of the criticism of Elon’s companies is based on style over substance. Critics don’t like the messaging, the approach to advertising, the apparent haphazard seat-of-the-pants style of doing things, the “break it and move fast” approach, the PR philosophy, or lack thereof.

Look beyond the style, though, to the substance, and the products end up being pretty phenomenal. Who else offers what Starlink does?

EDIT

Prediction: There will be more such U-turns and apparently chaotic service updates in future. The style is a feature, not a bug. And Starlink annual revenue will continue to grow from its current ~$1B to over $10B in just a handful of years.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tomness on 05/04/2023 02:06 am
I got email for update, I recently switched out from Residential/Standard to Mobile/Roam because coverage. With this update is allowing to switch back if want to and save $30, plus have more priority.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: mn on 05/04/2023 02:46 am
Which is cool, if unexpected. I'm assuming they're generally going back to uncapped for all residential (now called Standard I see) plans? Did everybody else get upgraded?
I did. I suspect they returned everyone that wasn't hogging bandwidth to the previous standard. The problem with unlimited is that a few hogs can ruin it for everyone. Adding limits for everyone and then selectively removing the limits seems like a clever solution to that.

A better solution would be not to advertise 'unlimited' in the first place.

Nobody is forcing any company to offer unlimited, just start with a limit that covers 97% of the users and you know you can handle.

it just creates all the back and forth mess for absolutely no reason.

rant over, now back to regularly scheduled programming.

An observation: So much of the criticism of Elon’s companies is based on style over substance. Critics don’t like the messaging, the approach to advertising, the apparent haphazard seat-of-the-pants style of doing things, the “break it and move fast” approach, the PR philosophy, or lack thereof.

Look beyond the style, though, to the substance, and the products end up being pretty phenomenal. Who else offers what Starlink does?

EDIT

Prediction: There will be more such U-turns and apparently chaotic service updates in future. The style is a feature, not a bug. And Starlink annual revenue will continue to grow from its current ~$1B to over $10B in just a handful of years.

All true. My beef with this particular issue of offering unlimited data is not about SpaceX at all. It seems so many providers do this same dance and it's completely unnecessary and drives me crazy.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: spacenuance on 05/04/2023 06:51 pm
New official Starlink twitter account. https://twitter.com/Starlink (https://twitter.com/Starlink)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/04/2023 08:10 pm
BTW, do we know how many subscribers are on Starlink now?

Last number I found was 1 million in December 2022.  I'm curious what rate they are adding customers at this point.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: spacenuance on 05/06/2023 02:27 am
BTW, do we know how many subscribers are on Starlink now?

Last number I found was 1 million in December 2022.  I'm curious what rate they are adding customers at this point.

1.5mil apparently https://twitter.com/Starlink/status/1654673695007457280?s=20 (https://twitter.com/Starlink/status/1654673695007457280?s=20)


Quote
Thank you to our 1.5M+ customers around the world!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/06/2023 05:40 am
So 1.5M+. Phenomenal growth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/06/2023 07:28 am
https://twitter.com/sawyermerritt/status/1654674254183399425

Quote
BREAKING: SpaceX's @Starlink has reached 1.5 million users worldwide, generating over $140 million per month in revenue.

Quote
$140M is my conservative estimate. It's likely a lot higher due to more expensive tier options (boats, planes, etc.).

https://twitter.com/sawyermerritt/status/1654674967072591874

Quote
This means Starlink has added 500,000 users in just the last ~135 days, or an avg of over 3,700 per day. Insane growth!! 🚀
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/06/2023 07:41 am
https://twitter.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1654686435729985537

Quote
SpaceX's @Starlink is seeing hyper growth, adding over ~3,600 new customers per day.

Customer total now stands at 1.5 million per SpaceX.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: docmordrid on 05/06/2023 03:21 pm
Would one corporate contract = one "user" or is there a correction factor?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 05/06/2023 06:02 pm
Which is cool, if unexpected. I'm assuming they're generally going back to uncapped for all residential (now called Standard I see) plans? Did everybody else get upgraded?
I did. I suspect they returned everyone that wasn't hogging bandwidth to the previous standard. The problem with unlimited is that a few hogs can ruin it for everyone. Adding limits for everyone and then selectively removing the limits seems like a clever solution to that.

A better solution would be not to advertise 'unlimited' in the first place.

Nobody is forcing any company to offer unlimited, just start with a limit that covers 97% of the users and you know you can handle.

it just creates all the back and forth mess for absolutely no reason.

rant over, now back to regularly scheduled programming.

They never advertised that it would be unlimited forever. They said it would be unlimited for now, but might have limits in the future. Which is still accurate.

They could create limits now, but there are a lot of variables that go into limits so they would have to change them again sooner or later, and those eventual changes would cause the same kind of complaints.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/06/2023 07:22 pm
BTW, do we know how many subscribers are on Starlink now?

Last number I found was 1 million in December 2022.  I'm curious what rate they are adding customers at this point.

Well I guess I could have waited 48 hrs and I would have known. 

1.5M is great to hear, but they must want to be adding more users faster.

Antenna production must still be the limitation.  Because I’m certain global demand is massive.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/07/2023 05:56 am
I like the average profit per satellite approach, as a way to estimate overall profitability.

There are currently 4000 active sats and 1.5M+ customers, so that’s about 400 customers per operational satellite. Which means about $500k annual revenue per active satellite, or $2.5M over the 5 year lifespan of each satellite. In simple terms, if each satellite costs less than a cumulative $2.5M to build, launch and operate for 5 years, the business model is profitable. Which seems almost certain to be the case.

Assume a $500 dishy subsidy per customer, then that would allocate a further $500x400 customers = $200k dishy cost per satellite. Which still seems easily recoverable given the above. My rough estimates:

Satellite construction cost - $200k
Satellite launch cost - $500k
Dish subsidy allocation - $200k
Total - less than $1M.

Leaving 5 years of operational cost to still be covered, but split over 4000 satellites I can’t imagine that is more than a million dollars per satellite over 5 years. Might even be half or a quarter of that. Leaving between $500k and $1M profit per satellite over 5 years.

Multiplied by 4000 sats = $2B-$4B profit over 5 years. But thats based on version 1 satellites. The equation presumably becomes greatly more profitable using V2 sats.

And it also assumes that 1.6M is the carrying capacity of the current 4000 satellites, which seems unlikely, as they are still growing at a rapid pace. If they push that to say 2M customers that just improves the margins.

In summary, things are looking bright for Starlink.

The nice thing about the above approach is that you can keep updating the estimate as the network grows, you just need the total number of satellites and total number of subscribers at any given time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 05/07/2023 09:15 am
Musk’s Starlink grows 20pc since Feb, charges past NBN satellite users (https://www.afr.com/companies/telecommunications/musk-s-starlink-grows-20pc-since-feb-charges-past-nbn-satellite-users-20230505-p5d5vi)

Quote
Starlink has told the government and major telecommunications companies it has signed up 120,000 Australian customers – 20,000 more than it reportedly had in February – heaping further pressure on NBN’s own flagging satellite venture.

The Elon Musk-owned, low-earth, orbit satellite operator relayed the news to a confidential meeting of a government working group on Thursday, sources told AFR Weekend.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jpo234 on 05/08/2023 09:41 am
Viasat/Skylogic must pay damages to Starlink (https://advanced-television.com/2023/04/20/viasat-must-pay-damages-to-starlink/)
Quote
France’s administrative court (the Conseil d’Etat) has again ruled in favour of Elon Musk’s Starlink broadband system, and ordered California-based Viasat-owned Skylogic to pay damages to Starlink. The earlier victory for Starlink was back in June 2022.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 05/12/2023 06:19 am
I posted this in the Starlink@War thread, but it's interesting that this "feature" is specifically called out as Starlink specific positioning in light of the various discussions regarding Starlink PNT capabilities (both native and "externally" added on)

https://twitter.com/olegkutkov/status/1655697905263542272 (https://twitter.com/olegkutkov/status/1655697905263542272)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/12/2023 03:33 pm
Normal GPS receivers are easy to jam because they have omnidirectional antennas… Starlink uses phased array receivers which not only increase the gain of the satellite signal but null out sources that aren’t being focused on. So it should be FAR harder to jam, if done correctly (you’d need to do some searching pattern to get initial lock, and I’m not sure if it’s feasible to use Starlink in receive-only mode?).

Of course, you probably can do much the same trick with GPS if you had a phased array receiver, BUT GPS frequency is far lower which means a phased array for the same directionality would have to be far bigger.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/12/2023 04:34 pm
Normal GPS receivers are easy to jam because they have omnidirectional antennas… Starlink uses phased array receivers which not only increase the gain of the satellite signal but null out sources that aren’t being focused on. So it should be FAR harder to jam, if done correctly (you’d need to do some searching pattern to get initial lock, and I’m not sure if it’s feasible to use Starlink in receive-only mode?).

Of course, you probably can do much the same trick with GPS if you had a phased array receiver, BUT GPS frequency is far lower which means a phased array for the same directionality would have to be far bigger.

Starlink does not need GPS after the terminal is in the net. It uses it's location as one input to its pointing calculations.

You cannot use phased array or any other beam-forming approach until you already know where you are, unless you scan the beam across the sky, Scanning the beam does not in general work well because you need to stare at each point for enough time to analyze the signal from that point.

GPS in particular uses very weak signals and depends on spread spectrum techniques to generate an Eb/N0 that is high enough for the receiver to decode. It spreads in the time domain, so the receiver would need to spend a long time in each point. The spread factor for GPS is effectively 1048, which is ridiculously high by comparison to typical spreading factors used in normal data comms. In fact, all of the GPS satellites transmit on the same frequency, basically creating interference for each other. The receiver analyzes the signal using each satellite's spread code to extract that satellite's signal from this mess separately.

It's a whole lot easier to just let the operator enter the location using a map and set the clock based on an accurate watch.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 05/12/2023 04:46 pm
 They've had fairly simple GPS units that could switch to the last good coordinates, updated by iphone class inertial sensors to keep a fairly good position until you're out of the bad photons for at least 15 years. Also, smart enough units to recognize carriers that gave results inconsistant with other carriers, and lock the bad streams out.
 So, not killing the whole system every time a few sat streams were invalid was probably nothing but a simple software switch. But enough to help keep the system going down from jamming.
 The GPS 3s are a whole other conversation.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/14/2023 06:26 pm
15 years?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tommyboy on 05/14/2023 08:57 pm
15 years?
He most probably means that the product has existed for 15 years, not that these things can do reliable dead-reckoning for 15 years straight.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/14/2023 11:06 pm
I was thinking minutes to resume lock,  but that makes more sense.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 05/15/2023 12:13 am
 The ones I worked with were dual antenna gps compasses. Some uses need a steady position/heading stream that won't cut out when you go under a bridge or past a Russian jammer.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/15/2023 12:42 am
The ones I worked with were dual antenna gps compasses. Some uses need a steady position/heading stream that won't cut out when you go under a bridge or past a Russian jammer.
Those compasses use two antennas at least a few feet part (farther is better). Basically two separate GPS systems that also talk to each other (differential GPS). This gives you two absolute GPS locations to a bit better than usual accuracy plus location of the two relative to each other to extreme accuracy. The system derives "compass" heading from those relative positions. Not really intended to help against jamming or blockage, but I guess you get some of that as a side effect.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 05/15/2023 12:52 pm
 They most definitely were made to handle blockage. They had tiny gyros in early ones and solid state inertial sensors later, to take over for a while during gps signal loss.
 I had to prove that to the world's smartest engineer before I could use them to back up ship's gyros.
 It was only accurate for a few minutes, but enough to go under a bridge or through a biblical class squall.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/15/2023 02:29 pm
They most definitely were made to handle blockage. They had tiny gyros in early ones and solid state inertial sensors later, to take over for a while during gps signal loss.
 I had to prove that to the world's smartest engineer before I could use them to back up ship's gyros.
 It was only accurate for a few minutes, but enough to go under a bridge or through a biblical class squall.
Yes, they handle blockages, but not by using the two antennas. They use an alternative inertial system instead, as you say here. This is all relevant when your system is moving. For a non-moving system, the operator-entered location and orientation suffices.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/18/2023 06:22 am
twitter.com/dimazeniuk/status/1658775033488048129

Quote
SpaceX’s popular Starlink ISP has launched a new promotion for people in UK rural areas that slashes the one-off hardware cost by 75% from £460 to just £99. 🇬🇧

Source: ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023…
@Starlink @elonmusk

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1659077120155435008

Quote
Temporary experiment to test price elasticity of demand
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/27/2023 04:53 am
https://twitter.com/virtuallynathan/status/1662256501220671494

Quote
After nearly 5 great years, today was my last day at Netflix. Excited to get started at SpaceX (Starlink) in 2 weeks!

Great news for Nathan, I guess that unfortunately means fewer quality updates for the rest of us?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 05/29/2023 04:31 am
Hey buddy, what's your color?

https://twitter.com/olegkutkov/status/1662642250017382400 (https://twitter.com/olegkutkov/status/1662642250017382400)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/29/2023 04:46 am
Quote from: Oleg Kutkov tweet
I managed to extract and reconstruct almost all Starlink protocols.
It turns out that laser-linked satellites call each other "Buddy". [May 28 UTC]
Is that programming language C++?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Greg Hullender on 05/29/2023 03:33 pm
Is that programming language C++?
I think it's Proto 3 (https://protobuf.dev/programming-guides/proto3/).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: joek on 05/29/2023 03:43 pm
Is that programming language C++?
I think it's Proto 3 (https://protobuf.dev/programming-guides/proto3/).

It is likely Proto, which is a specification language with bindings for any number of underlying languages. Think modern equivalent of ASN.1 (if anyone remembers that, which I wish I could forget :) ).


edit: p.s., lest I step on some toes and risk digression... Proto has a toolchain and support (those language bindings) which ASN.1 never had, unless one counts PEPSI et. al. (ick, yuck and double-yuck). ASN.1 is not intrinsically bad, just what you might expect from the ITU and the gnomes in Geneva. Sorry for digression; back to the thread topic.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: joek on 05/29/2023 04:15 pm
Not sure whether this belongs here or in the SS engineering thread or ....

Appears that the Starship Starlink dispenser has Starlink coming out "sideways" (long axis of Starlink perpendicular to Starship axis). That requires a longer-larger hole in the side of Starship, and potentially more significant structural issues? As we are basically dealing with a cylinder, do not see any obvious reason why they would not rotate 90 degrees to reduce the size of the hole in the side of Starship?

edit: Doh. think figured it out... rotating 90 degrees could reduce egress area. but with additional complexity in the stack-eject mechanism.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/02/2023 07:38 pm
https://twitter.com/starlink/status/1664717672104198147

Quote
Starlink set an altitude and speed record for use in-flight during Starship’s first flight test, providing connectivity at 123,600+ feet and while traveling at Mach 1.7! 🛰️🚀
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: geza on 06/03/2023 06:14 pm
Good to know that Starlink connection worked well during Starship test flight.

Are the optical inter-satellite links fully operational by now? They will be indispensable to follow Starship around the Globe on a more successful flight. Moreover, do we know anything about development of Starlink connection to cislunar space, or to Mars? Optical connections, I guess. It is an immense task. Mars is 5-6 orders of magnitudes farther than the neighboring satellites!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 06/03/2023 11:36 pm
Not sure whether this belongs here or in the SS engineering thread or ....

Appears that the Starship Starlink dispenser has Starlink coming out "sideways" (long axis of Starlink perpendicular to Starship axis). That requires a longer-larger hole in the side of Starship, and potentially more significant structural issues? As we are basically dealing with a cylinder, do not see any obvious reason why they would not rotate 90 degrees to reduce the size of the hole in the side of Starship?

edit: Doh. think figured it out... rotating 90 degrees could reduce egress area. but with additional complexity in the stack-eject mechanism.
Yea. the sideways ejection have the advantage of only requiring 2 points of support in each layer of the stack-eject mechanism for each pair of Starlink V2 comsat. Thus lowering the mass of the mechanism.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/07/2023 11:00 pm
Joining the Starlink team in Nathan's cohort:  A 14-year old.  ;D

Quote
Like thousands of 14-year-olds, Kairan Quazi graduates this month — but not from middle school. He’ll be getting his bachelor’s degree at Santa Clara University as the youngest graduate in the institution’s history, and then heading to SpaceX to become a software engineer.

“I’m really excited for this new chapter of my life,” said Kairan, who will be moving from Pleasanton to Washington state with his mom, Jullia, in July to join SpaceX’s Starlink team.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/06/07/hes-14-just-graduated-santa-clara-university-and-about-to-join-spacex/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/21/2023 10:12 pm
Question, I saw yesterday that an upcoming Shell 5 launch (I forget which one) was the last v1.5 launch.

Does that mean all flights after that will be v2 Mini, or is there another v1.x model?

The v2 Mini is such a low number of satellites per flight that making the half deployment date of Phase 2 starlink by late 2024 would require 100 or more F9 starlink flights in that time.  (that would be tight).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 06/22/2023 12:34 am
Cross-post:
Starlink 5-15 is the last scheduled launch of v1.5 Starlink satellites: 🛰
1245-EX-ST-2023 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=125332&RequestTimeout=1000)   Starlink 5-15, Mission
NET July from Florida [July 8]
ASDS North  28  29  11   West  80  32  51



NextSpaceflight (Updated June 20th)
Launch NET 6 July 2023
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/7168
Also from NextSpaceflight:
Quote
This is the last planned launch of Starlink v1.5 satellites.

If that's the case then the missions with v1.5 satellites that won't be launched are 2-2, 2-3, 4-24, 4-28, 4-30, 4-32, 4-33, 5-8, and 5-14
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 06/22/2023 07:22 am
Question, I saw yesterday that an upcoming Shell 5 launch (I forget which one) was the last v1.5 launch.

Does that mean all flights after that will be v2 Mini, or is there another v1.x model?

The v2 Mini is such a low number of satellites per flight that making the half deployment date of Phase 2 starlink by late 2024 would require 100 or more F9 starlink flights in that time.  (that would be tight).

Phase 2, you mean v-band only satellites envisioned in 2017? SpaceX filed to modify the license a few months ago (https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATMOD2023032200062&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number). It wants to add v-band payload to gen2 satellites. The FCC has no good reason to reject the request. The only question is how the FCC will modify the deployment deadline. The application has been open for public comments for two months now and no competitor made a filing asking the FCC to keep the 50% deployment deadline at the original date of November 2024.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 07/06/2023 11:51 pm
So it looks like Starlink sats are leaking lower frequency RF.

https://cps.iau.org/news/new-radio-astronomical-observations-confirm-unintended-electromagnetic-radiation-emanating-from-large-satellite-constellations/ (https://cps.iau.org/news/new-radio-astronomical-observations-confirm-unintended-electromagnetic-radiation-emanating-from-large-satellite-constellations/)

https://www.aanda.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346374 (https://www.aanda.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346374)

Now to be fair, the authors did admit they focused on Starlink sats only, as that was easier to monitor. OneWeb may possibly be as bad. Kuiper might want to review their design.

Also, even though it's an ITU protected radioastronomy band, apparently there are no regulations on sat operators to stay out of the band on satellites (guess the rules only apply to terrestrial sources?)

I guess the implication here is that to reduce weight, the shielding for those bands isn't present? Still, SpaceX is doing the right thing and will work on it for later revisions of their bus.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/15/2023 06:28 pm
https://twitter.com/ralfvandebergh/status/1680270117635084289

Quote
Test images #Starlink satellite bus first generation in operational orbit. Left: 2022-12-15. Right: 2023-06-08. 0.25 meter (25cm) aperture, selected frames. Flat plate bus design. Solar array not visible (as intended)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/16/2023 09:19 pm
I'm only a summer Starlink user, but I noticed something kinda weird when I started things back up in late June.

I get a substantial lag when connecting to sites that I haven't used recently.  I'm wondering:

1) Has anybody noticed the same thing?

2) An obvious explanation for the lag would be that there's something special about address resolution in the Starlink cloud.  With vanilla-flavored IP, you almost always know the correct next hop for a new address, because the IP address space is fully populated from a routing standpoint.  Even if your next-hop routers don't have an explicit network number in cache, they know a router to dump the traffic to.

I'm wondering if SpaceX is setting up tunnels through the satellite network, now that they have a fair amount of capacity in the inter-satellite network.  This seems to me to be the exact wrong thing to do:  I'd expect them to bounce stuff to the nearest gateway to hot-potato it out of their network, reserving ISL bandwidth for people with the right class of service.  But I've been wrong before about how they're managing things.

Anybody know anything about this?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/17/2023 05:54 am
twitter.com/starlinkinsider/status/1680808445958602752

Quote
It simply works 👇🏼

https://twitter.com/starlinkinsider/status/1680808449829945349

Quote
Source:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2023/07/16/nbn-elon-musk-starlink/

Quote
‘On the back foot’: NBN satellites struggle as regional Australia looks to Elon Musk’s Starlink

The NBN's satellite internet service is falling behind in regional areas as Starlink scoops up customers.

Matthew Elmas

For Coffs Harbour-based business owner Tom White, the National Broadband Network (NBN)’s Sky Muster satellite service allowed him to start running a firm from regional New South Wales.

But times have changed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 07/17/2023 08:14 am
I'm seeing the same (sometimes). Thought it was down to the VPN I am using on top of the Starlink connection. Will do some tests without and see.

Haven't heard of them setting up tunnels - Might be new, might be localized.

I'm only a summer Starlink user, but I noticed something kinda weird when I started things back up in late June.

I get a substantial lag when connecting to sites that I haven't used recently.  I'm wondering:

1) Has anybody noticed the same thing?

2) An obvious explanation for the lag would be that there's something special about address resolution in the Starlink cloud.  With vanilla-flavored IP, you almost always know the correct next hop for a new address, because the IP address space is fully populated from a routing standpoint.  Even if your next-hop routers don't have an explicit network number in cache, they know a router to dump the traffic to.

I'm wondering if SpaceX is setting up tunnels through the satellite network, now that they have a fair amount of capacity in the inter-satellite network.  This seems to me to be the exact wrong thing to do:  I'd expect them to bounce stuff to the nearest gateway to hot-potato it out of their network, reserving ISL bandwidth for people with the right class of service.  But I've been wrong before about how they're managing things.

Anybody know anything about this?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/17/2023 08:26 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1681035389908185088

Quote
SpaceX "has told some investors it expects to bring in about $8 billion in revenue in 2023, roughly doubling its revenue from the previous year," reports @beckpeterson & @coryweinberg:

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/spacex-forecasts-doubling-of-revenue-to-8-billion

Presumably the doubling is mostly due to Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: matthewkantar on 07/17/2023 09:39 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1681035389908185088

Quote
SpaceX "has told some investors it expects to bring in about $8 billion in revenue in 2023, roughly doubling its revenue from the previous year," reports @beckpeterson & @coryweinberg:

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/spacex-forecasts-doubling-of-revenue-to-8-billion

Presumably the doubling is mostly due to Starlink.

Going from 61 to 90, maybe even 100 launches can’t hurt either.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/17/2023 09:50 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1681035389908185088

Quote
SpaceX "has told some investors it expects to bring in about $8 billion in revenue in 2023, roughly doubling its revenue from the previous year," reports @beckpeterson & @coryweinberg:

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/spacex-forecasts-doubling-of-revenue-to-8-billion

Presumably the doubling is mostly due to Starlink.
I did a quick estimate of the paying customers for F9/FH/Dragon flights and that looks to be EOY 2023 of ~$3.4B with Starship revenue from NASA at about $700M. Leaving Starlink with ~$3B and then all those other little odds and ends making up greater than another >$400M. For a value of >$7.5B.

BTW 3B Starlink contains now a significant number of large Maritime Commercial Vessels customers besides just about 2M residential subscribers. Then there is also Airlines, the cases where multiple people have not only a residential but also a Mobile subscription or as well a personal Maritime subscription. Thus Starlink is indeed likely to be ~$3.5B = 2.4B residential+.2B Mobile +.2B personnel Maritime + .3B Commercial Maritime + .1B Airlines + .3B Business. Or just less than half of SpaceX total revenue. An unknown is what is the value for Government Starlink customers Civil and Military revenues.

Now the question is what are all of SpaceX's costs for Starlink, F9/FH/Dragon, Starship and other side projects.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/17/2023 11:50 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1681035389908185088

Quote
SpaceX "has told some investors it expects to bring in about $8 billion in revenue in 2023, roughly doubling its revenue from the previous year," reports @beckpeterson & @coryweinberg:

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/spacex-forecasts-doubling-of-revenue-to-8-billion

Presumably the doubling is mostly due to Starlink.
I did a quick estimate of the paying customers for F9/FH/Dragon flights and that looks to be EOY 2023 of ~$3.4B with Starship revenue from NASA at about $700M. Leaving Starlink with ~$3B and then all those other little odds and ends making up greater than another >$400M. For a value of >$7.5B.

BTW 3B Starlink contains now a significant number of large Maritime Commercial Vessels customers besides just about 2M residential subscribers. Then there is also Airlines, the cases where multiple people have not only a residential but also a Mobile subscription or as well a personal Maritime subscription. Thus Starlink is indeed likely to be ~$3.5B = 2.4B residential+.2B Mobile +.2B personnel Maritime + .3B Commercial Maritime + .1B Airlines + .3B Business. Or just less than half of SpaceX total revenue. An unknown is what is the value for Government Starlink customers Civil and Military revenues.

Now the question is what are all of SpaceX's costs for Starlink, F9/FH/Dragon, Starship and other side projects.

Well, Elon did say recently that he doesn’t foresee SpaceX needing to do any capital raises in the foreseeable future. Implying that they are funding all of their expenditure from revenue and current cash reserves. Looks like they have crossed the threshold and are now cash flow positive.

S-curve activated.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/18/2023 02:42 pm
Well, Elon did say recently that he doesn’t foresee SpaceX needing to do any capital raises in the foreseeable future. Implying that they are funding all of their expenditure from revenue and current cash reserves. Looks like they have crossed the threshold and are now cash flow positive.

S-curve activated.

Agreed, it's all going to come down to how quickly they add subscribers. 

If they can balance the books while developing Starship and deploying Starlink, that is an amazing accomplishment.  Going forward, especially once Starship can start deploying Starlink, my gosh, self funded Mars settlement is not unreasonable.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/18/2023 05:15 pm
It's possible that some Starlink users may have experienced lag when connecting to sites they haven't used recently. Internet performance can be influenced by various factors, including network congestion, routing, and server response times. Specific issues related to Starlink's performance might have been addressed or improved since my last update, so it's best to check the latest user reviews or contact Starlink support for more up-to-date information.

Starlink is a satellite internet service, and as with any network, it may employ various techniques to optimize data routing and improve user experience. The specifics of Starlink's network architecture and how they handle routing and address resolution might not be publicly disclosed or may have changed since my last update. Therefore, it's challenging for me to confirm or deny your assumption about tunnels through the satellite network or their routing approach.

Another thing that might factor into this:  I'm in Northern Maine.  Last year, my dishy pointed almost due north.  This year, it's pointing east-northeast.

That makes a certain amount of sense.  There's hardly anybody east of me that's consuming capacity, so assigning Northern Maine to use a block of birds that are getting ready to go below the eastern horizon frees up capacity for the heavier consumers in the rest of New England and Quebec, which can use birds to the north.

But that likely implies that my block is more heavily dependent on ISLs since, unlike the ones to the north, there are no terrestrial gateways in the Atlantic, so there's no way to hot-potato traffic immediately out of the ISL network.  So this may be more of an ISL route-finding problem than a tunneling problem (not that there's a huge amount of difference between the two problems).

I wish they'd go back to using satellites to the north.  I cut down a tree and would have had almost perfect exposure to the northern sky this year.  With dishy pointed to the east, I can't avoid a fair number of obstructions.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: mn on 07/18/2023 05:36 pm
It's possible that some Starlink users may have experienced lag when connecting to sites they haven't used recently. Internet performance can be influenced by various factors, including network congestion, routing, and server response times. Specific issues related to Starlink's performance might have been addressed or improved since my last update, so it's best to check the latest user reviews or contact Starlink support for more up-to-date information.

Starlink is a satellite internet service, and as with any network, it may employ various techniques to optimize data routing and improve user experience. The specifics of Starlink's network architecture and how they handle routing and address resolution might not be publicly disclosed or may have changed since my last update. Therefore, it's challenging for me to confirm or deny your assumption about tunnels through the satellite network or their routing approach.

Another thing that might factor into this:  I'm in Northern Maine.  Last year, my dishy pointed almost due north.  This year, it's pointing east-northeast.

That makes a certain amount of sense.  There's hardly anybody east of me that's consuming capacity, so assigning Northern Maine to use a block of birds that are getting ready to go below the eastern horizon frees up capacity for the heavier consumers in the rest of New England and Quebec, which can use birds to the north.

But that likely implies that my block is more heavily dependent on ISLs since, unlike the ones to the north, there are no terrestrial gateways in the Atlantic, so there's no way to hot-potato traffic immediately out of the ISL network.  So this may be more of an ISL route-finding problem than a tunneling problem (not that there's a huge amount of difference between the two problems).

I wish they'd go back to using satellites to the north.  I cut down a tree and would have had almost perfect exposure to the northern sky this year.  With dishy pointed to the east, I can't avoid a fair number of obstructions.

If you blocked the eastern view completely (just for testing, put up something right near the dish on the east site that blocks the signal), would dishy figure out that it must look north?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/18/2023 05:50 pm
It's possible that some Starlink users may have experienced lag when connecting to sites they haven't used recently. Internet performance can be influenced by various factors, including network congestion, routing, and server response times. Specific issues related to Starlink's performance might have been addressed or improved since my last update, so it's best to check the latest user reviews or contact Starlink support for more up-to-date information.

Starlink is a satellite internet service, and as with any network, it may employ various techniques to optimize data routing and improve user experience. The specifics of Starlink's network architecture and how they handle routing and address resolution might not be publicly disclosed or may have changed since my last update. Therefore, it's challenging for me to confirm or deny your assumption about tunnels through the satellite network or their routing approach.

Another thing that might factor into this:  I'm in Northern Maine.  Last year, my dishy pointed almost due north.  This year, it's pointing east-northeast.

That makes a certain amount of sense.  There's hardly anybody east of me that's consuming capacity, so assigning Northern Maine to use a block of birds that are getting ready to go below the eastern horizon frees up capacity for the heavier consumers in the rest of New England and Quebec, which can use birds to the north.

But that likely implies that my block is more heavily dependent on ISLs since, unlike the ones to the north, there are no terrestrial gateways in the Atlantic, so there's no way to hot-potato traffic immediately out of the ISL network.  So this may be more of an ISL route-finding problem than a tunneling problem (not that there's a huge amount of difference between the two problems).

I wish they'd go back to using satellites to the north.  I cut down a tree and would have had almost perfect exposure to the northern sky this year.  With dishy pointed to the east, I can't avoid a fair number of obstructions.

If you blocked the eastern view completely (just for testing, put up something right near the dish on the east site that blocks the signal), would dishy figure out that it must look north?
That's not how it works. Only one (or a few) satellites are "pointing" their receivers at your location at any one time, so you must point at those satellites. Other satellites might be in your line of sight, but they are not listening to you or transmitting to you. SpaceX picks the satellite(s) serving your location to maximize throughput for the system as a whole. In this case the satellites that could serve Maine from north or west can will serve more users to the north or west, while the satellites to the east have nothing better to do with their bandwidth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/18/2023 07:58 pm
That's not how it works. Only one (or a few) satellites are "pointing" their receivers at your location at any one time, so you must point at those satellites. Other satellites might be in your line of sight, but they are not listening to you or transmitting to you. SpaceX picks the satellite(s) serving your location to maximize throughput for the system as a whole. In this case the satellites that could serve Maine from north or west can will serve more users to the north or west, while the satellites to the east have nothing better to do with their bandwidth.

A lot depends on how much value SpaceX attaches to keeping partially-obstructed customers semi-happy (I always remember a quote from one the Burroughs CEOs back in the 60's, who described the ideal customer as "surly but not rebellious"), vs. packing every last possible subscriber into the current suite of satellites.

Maintaining a few "bail-out" slots for the most hard-luck deployments would go a long way for maintaining customer satisfaction and eliminating the inevitable social media kvetching.  But it definitely takes bandwidth away from some pretty high-demand areas (upstate NY, MA, western CT, and a whole bunch of people in the St. Lawrence Valley).



The more I think about it, it seems unlikely that SpaceX would have nailed-up ISL pathways for any bird out over the over the ocean, or otherwise out of reach of a gateway that allowed a simple bent-pipe traffic pattern.  That would mean that there might be a hop-by-hop negotiation for each new flow (a srcIP/dstIP/DSCP tuple)  through the ISL network until it reached a gateway.  That might indeed chew up some time on new connection attempts.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 07/18/2023 11:18 pm
Another thing that might factor into this:  I'm in Northern Maine.  Last year, my dishy pointed almost due north.  This year, it's pointing east-northeast.

Huh, I was under the impression the dish did an initial optimal general constellation orientation and then was relatively static. How often does the dish reorient itself?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/19/2023 01:20 am
That's not how it works. Only one (or a few) satellites are "pointing" their receivers at your location at any one time, so you must point at those satellites. Other satellites might be in your line of sight, but they are not listening to you or transmitting to you. SpaceX picks the satellite(s) serving your location to maximize throughput for the system as a whole. In this case the satellites that could serve Maine from north or west can will serve more users to the north or west, while the satellites to the east have nothing better to do with their bandwidth.

A lot depends on how much value SpaceX attaches to keeping partially-obstructed customers semi-happy (I always remember a quote from one the Burroughs CEOs back in the 60's, who described the ideal customer as "surly but not rebellious"), vs. packing every last possible subscriber into the current suite of satellites.

Maintaining a few "bail-out" slots for the most hard-luck deployments would go a long way for maintaining customer satisfaction and eliminating the inevitable social media kvetching.  But it definitely takes bandwidth away from some pretty high-demand areas (upstate NY, MA, western CT, and a whole bunch of people in the St. Lawrence Valley).



The more I think about it, it seems unlikely that SpaceX would have nailed-up ISL pathways for any bird out over the over the ocean, or otherwise out of reach of a gateway that allowed a simple bent-pipe traffic pattern.  That would mean that there might be a hop-by-hop negotiation for each new flow (a srcIP/dstIP/DSCP tuple)  through the ISL network until it reached a gateway.  That might indeed chew up some time on new connection attempts.
I don't know how SpaceX does it, but when I was analyzing this the idea was to have an ISL path from each GW to each satellite. These paths changed based on the satellite locations in a highly deterministic manner. In particular, we assumed ISL links within each plane to the next-ahead and next-behind that essentially never changed, plus (usually) two additional ISLs to satellites in other planes that change deterministically. Thus. all satellites have links all the time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/19/2023 01:23 am
There was a very wordy youtube by JChristina about six months ago about Starlink reorienting the dishes to point out over the water in coastal areas. He is in Florida and his dish is now pointing North East (  https://youtu.be/JHNqOBo3Snw )

Worth noting the ground stations in Sullivan ME and Nova Scotia. For most of Maine,  any visible satellite over the Atlantic is also in view of at least one of those two ground stations. No need for ISL.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/19/2023 03:27 am
Another thing that might factor into this:  I'm in Northern Maine.  Last year, my dishy pointed almost due north.  This year, it's pointing east-northeast.

Huh, I was under the impression the dish did an initial optimal general constellation orientation and then was relatively static. How often does the dish reorient itself?

Last year it pointed north all summer.  So far this year, it's pointed ENE.

I think they're divvying up geographical locations and assigning them areas of the sky so the load is balanced as well as possible.  Since people close to the Atlantic are the only ones who can efficiently use the parts of the constellation out over the water, it makes sense to assign them to that chunk of the sky.  After that, dishy only does beam-steering.

I don't think the ghost of my poplar tree is going to be mollified by this explanation.  On the other hand, a poplar tree is just a giant weed waiting for a chance to fall on your house.  It had it coming.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/19/2023 03:40 am
I don't know how SpaceX does it, but when I was analyzing this the idea was to have an ISL path from each GW to each satellite. These paths changed based on the satellite locations in a highly deterministic manner. In particular, we assumed ISL links within each plane to the next-ahead and next-behind that essentially never changed, plus (usually) two additional ISLs to satellites in other planes that change deterministically. Thus. all satellites have links all the time.

I also would've expected a computed-but-not-quite-nailed-up path to the nearest GW, with the assumption that traffic should be removed from space as quickly as possible, since ISL bandwidth is a much scarcer resource than bent-pipe bandwidth.

One possibility is that they're playing around with how they're going to allocate the higher-level quality of service for the super-duper low latency traffic, and they've found something that makes it hard to do a simple diffserv-like scheme, and they're reserving bandwidth along tagged paths, sorta-kinda intserv-like. 

That seems... weird... but if there were going to be a set of ISLs that were so congested that best-effort and better-QoS traffic had to be segregated, it'd be along the great circle from New York City to London.  My dishy points right along that great circle, so maybe we're guinea pigs up here.

I'm just spitballing here.  If I were more motivated, I'd start doing some traceroutes and try to put a sniffer in.  But that sounds a lot less fun than some idle speculation...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: launchwatcher on 07/19/2023 02:34 pm
I also would've expected a computed-but-not-quite-nailed-up path to the nearest GW, with the assumption that traffic should be removed from space as quickly as possible, since ISL bandwidth is a much scarcer resource than bent-pipe bandwidth.

Perhaps they're seeing congestion at some of the gateways and are doing admission control/traffic engineering to try to steer as much traffic away from congested ground stations.   I'd think the user terminal might be buffering traffic while waiting word from the control plane as to how to mark the outgoing traffic rather than dumping previously unseen flows into the default pipe -- if the route flips later to a different path (possibly involving ISL hops) out a different gateway you might have trouble with connections to anycast destinations...

Packet traces with timestamps of the start of a connection showing the issue might be illuminating..
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 07/19/2023 02:38 pm
Another thing that might factor into this:  I'm in Northern Maine.  Last year, my dishy pointed almost due north.  This year, it's pointing east-northeast.

Huh, I was under the impression the dish did an initial optimal general constellation orientation and then was relatively static. How often does the dish reorient itself?
I disabled the motors on mine so it’s almost flat but before that it rarely moved , usually only when you powered it on.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tommyboy on 07/19/2023 03:09 pm
I disabled the motors on mine so it’s almost flat but before that it rarely moved , usually only when you powered it on.
Just out of interest: Why did you do that?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 07/19/2023 03:15 pm
I disabled the motors on mine so it’s almost flat but before that it rarely moved , usually only when you powered it on.
Just out of interest: Why did you do that?
Better performance - mine is on a boat and the perceived wisdom was disable the motors and just let the antenna lock on electronically - worked fine even with the boat pitching around. I believe the new high performance dish doesn’t have any motors but could be wrong on that.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/19/2023 06:07 pm
Better performance - mine is on a boat and the perceived wisdom was disable the motors and just let the antenna lock on electronically - worked fine even with the boat pitching around. I believe the new high performance dish doesn’t have any motors but could be wrong on that.

Do you have the mobile version, or is there also a marine version?  In either case, I'd kinda guess that pitching the dishy up to zenith and making it considerably more promiscuous about what it'll lock onto would make pretty good sense.  It would also explain why it costs more:  because it can snarf on-demand bandwidth from any bird, rather than being relegated to a particular block of sky.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/19/2023 06:12 pm
Better performance - mine is on a boat and the perceived wisdom was disable the motors and just let the antenna lock on electronically - worked fine even with the boat pitching around. I believe the new high performance dish doesn’t have any motors but could be wrong on that.

Do you have the mobile version, or is there also a marine version?  In either case, I'd kinda guess that pitching the dishy up to zenith and making it considerably more promiscuous about what it'll lock onto would make pretty good sense.  It would also explain why it costs more:  because it can snarf on-demand bandwidth from any bird, rather than being relegated to a particular block of sky.
I doubt very much that this is true. I think you can only use the satellite(s) that are pointing at your area, not all the satellites in line of sight.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 07/19/2023 06:19 pm
You may think so with with the first 2 antenna versions the performance ON BOATS/IN MOTION increased dramatically once the motors were disabled (and it reduced power consumption). The antenna is almost horizonal and locks on very quickly no matter the location. I've gone from 53N to 10S and it's always locked without the motors.

The new flat high performance antenna is fixed and does not mechanically orient itself to find sats - 140 degrees view compared to 100 for the previous.

Better performance - mine is on a boat and the perceived wisdom was disable the motors and just let the antenna lock on electronically - worked fine even with the boat pitching around. I believe the new high performance dish doesn’t have any motors but could be wrong on that.

Do you have the mobile version, or is there also a marine version?  In either case, I'd kinda guess that pitching the dishy up to zenith and making it considerably more promiscuous about what it'll lock onto would make pretty good sense.  It would also explain why it costs more:  because it can snarf on-demand bandwidth from any bird, rather than being relegated to a particular block of sky.
I doubt very much that this is true. I think you can only use the satellite(s) that are pointing at your area, not all the satellites in line of sight.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/19/2023 06:40 pm
I also would've expected a computed-but-not-quite-nailed-up path to the nearest GW, with the assumption that traffic should be removed from space as quickly as possible, since ISL bandwidth is a much scarcer resource than bent-pipe bandwidth.

Perhaps they're seeing congestion at some of the gateways and are doing admission control/traffic engineering to try to steer as much traffic away from congested ground stations.   I'd think the user terminal might be buffering traffic while waiting word from the control plane as to how to mark the outgoing traffic rather than dumping previously unseen flows into the default pipe -- if the route flips later to a different path (possibly involving ISL hops) out a different gateway you might have trouble with connections to anycast destinations...

Packet traces with timestamps of the start of a connection showing the issue might be illuminating..

There's usually no traffic to buffer before the TCP SYN-SYN-ACK sequence is completed.  Usually, the first packet in the flow is the initial SYN.

The GEO systems used to throw all the TCP traffic into a single tunnel, and the gateway would then emulate SYN-SYN-ACK, which shaved about 240ms off of the connection time.  I used to work from up here in the woods, and when I had to use my company's IPSEC-based VPN, the local modem couldn't figure out which packets were TCP and which were something else, defeating the connection speedup mechanism.  The results were pretty grim.

I can't see Starlink doing something similar--it's just not necessary in most cases.  But if they're nailing up an ISL path, that could be a hop-by-hop process that could take a while.

I doubt your congestion theory.  In most cases, throwing extra fiber, link bandwidth, and routing performance is going to be a lot more cost-effective than chewing up ISL bandwidth.  Rural Maine surprisingly has a fairly robust fiber backbone, with good interconnections between itself, New Hampshire, and New Brunswick, so it's not like a gateway wouldn't have a high-bandwidth edge to service it.

I do have some obstructions, and I guess it's also possible that a TCP flow with long messages would tolerate lost packets better than a DNS lookup, which requires short transactions to get its work done.  Very puzzling, though.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/19/2023 06:50 pm
I doubt very much that this is true. I think you can only use the satellite(s) that are pointing at your area, not all the satellites in line of sight.

That's true, but there can be more than one bird locked onto your cell at once.  I'd guess (and it's only a guess), that there's a registration protocol, which will help deal with obstructions.  "Hi, satellite pdq, I'm dishy xyz!  Satellite abc seems to be obstructed.  Can you handle my traffic?"  "No, you should use satellite jkl instead."  Or, alternatively, "Nope, you have to stick with abc, and complain to your user that he should really move you."

In the mobile environment, obstruction maps are pretty useless from moment to moment, so it would make sense to allocate some "on-demand" registration slots for mobile dishies--and charge them extra for the privilege.

Marine probably doesn't have obstructions, but wave action will often drive an active satellite out of the cone through which beam-steering is effective.  That could also result in more frequent re-registrations.  The same thing might apply to aircraft turbulence.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: kevinof on 07/19/2023 06:55 pm
I have the original RV antenna so nothing marine specific but I do have the Mobile (oceans) package at $250/month. Works  very well and although not designed for in-motion the antenna doesn't have many issues and SpaceX aren't complaining either - sometimes loses lock when things get sporty but it's locked on when 15 degrees off horizonal and pitching wildly.

Better performance - mine is on a boat and the perceived wisdom was disable the motors and just let the antenna lock on electronically - worked fine even with the boat pitching around. I believe the new high performance dish doesn’t have any motors but could be wrong on that.

Do you have the mobile version, or is there also a marine version?  In either case, I'd kinda guess that pitching the dishy up to zenith and making it considerably more promiscuous about what it'll lock onto would make pretty good sense.  It would also explain why it costs more:  because it can snarf on-demand bandwidth from any bird, rather than being relegated to a particular block of sky.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 07/19/2023 07:28 pm
I doubt very much that this is true. I think you can only use the satellite(s) that are pointing at your area, not all the satellites in line of sight.

That's true, but there can be more than one bird locked onto your cell at once.  I'd guess (and it's only a guess), that there's a registration protocol, which will help deal with obstructions.  "Hi, satellite pdq, I'm dishy xyz!  Satellite abc seems to be obstructed.  Can you handle my traffic?"  "No, you should use satellite jkl instead."  Or, alternatively, "Nope, you have to stick with abc, and complain to your user that he should really move you."

In the mobile environment, obstruction maps are pretty useless from moment to moment, so it would make sense to allocate some "on-demand" registration slots for mobile dishies--and charge them extra for the privilege.

Marine probably doesn't have obstructions, but wave action will often drive an active satellite out of the cone through which beam-steering is effective.  That could also result in more frequent re-registrations.  The same thing might apply to aircraft turbulence.
.
 Marine definitely has obstructions and there have been vsat controllers for at least 15 years that will plot those obstructions using a ship heading/pitch/yaw/whatever from the gyro or multi antenna gps and signal dropouts. (Some have internal sensors for pitch and yaw, and only need a heading)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/19/2023 07:33 pm
I doubt very much that this is true. I think you can only use the satellite(s) that are pointing at your area, not all the satellites in line of sight.

That's true, but there can be more than one bird locked onto your cell at once.  I'd guess (and it's only a guess), that there's a registration protocol, which will help deal with obstructions.  "Hi, satellite pdq, I'm dishy xyz!  Satellite abc seems to be obstructed.  Can you handle my traffic?"  "No, you should use satellite jkl instead."  Or, alternatively, "Nope, you have to stick with abc, and complain to your user that he should really move you."

In the mobile environment, obstruction maps are pretty useless from moment to moment, so it would make sense to allocate some "on-demand" registration slots for mobile dishies--and charge them extra for the privilege.

Marine probably doesn't have obstructions, but wave action will often drive an active satellite out of the cone through which beam-steering is effective.  That could also result in more frequent re-registrations.  The same thing might apply to aircraft turbulence.
.
 Marine definitely has obstructions and there have been vsat controllers fot at least 15 years that will plot those obstructions using a ship heading from the gyro or multi antenna gps and signal dropouts.
Yup. When you install a GEO antenna on a ship, you are supposed to program in the obstruction map as part of the installation process.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/19/2023 07:49 pm
Marine definitely has obstructions and there have been vsat controllers for at least 15 years that will plot those obstructions using a ship heading/pitch/yaw/whatever from the gyro or multi antenna gps and signal dropouts. (Some have internal sensors for pitch and yaw, and only need a heading)

Fair point.  For some reason right now I tend to think of everything as a tree...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Alberto-Girardi on 07/22/2023 03:06 pm
Starlik 5-15 was widely called the last launch of starlink v1.5.

Does that mean that it is the last launch of 1.5 sats until the current one deorbit and will be replaced by other 1.5 sats, or that in the future when the current data deorbit they will be replaced by V2 sats?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/22/2023 05:29 pm
Starlik 5-15 was widely called the last launch of starlink v1.5.

Does that mean that it is the last launch of 1.5 sats until the current one deorbit and will be replaced by other 1.5 sats, or that in the future when the current data deorbit they will be replaced by V2 sats?

First priority would be to deorbit the V1.0 sats, some ~800 of them(~ 1/5 of the original 4200 sat constellation). Then replace them with V2's. Note it would take 40 F9 launches to replace them with V2 mini's. Likely awaiting Starship to do this replacement activity.

The V1.0 sats do not have ISL (Inter Sat Laser-links).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Alberto-Girardi on 07/22/2023 06:45 pm
Starlik 5-15 was widely called the last launch of starlink v1.5.

Does that mean that it is the last launch of 1.5 sats until the current one deorbit and will be replaced by other 1.5 sats, or that in the future when the current data deorbit they will be replaced by V2 sats?

First priority would be to deorbit the V1.0 sats, some ~800 of them(~ 1/5 of the original 4200 sat constellation). Then replace them with V2's. Note it would take 40 F9 launches to replace them with V2 mini's. Likely awaiting Starship to do this replacement activity.

The V1.0 sats do not have ISL (Inter Sat Laser-links).
so in the future only v2? Does this indicate a failure of the concept of a lot of very small sats?
Or can we consider starlink v2 in continuation of that concept?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/22/2023 07:06 pm
Starlik 5-15 was widely called the last launch of starlink v1.5.

Does that mean that it is the last launch of 1.5 sats until the current one deorbit and will be replaced by other 1.5 sats, or that in the future when the current data deorbit they will be replaced by V2 sats?

First priority would be to deorbit the V1.0 sats, some ~800 of them(~ 1/5 of the original 4200 sat constellation). Then replace them with V2's. Note it would take 40 F9 launches to replace them with V2 mini's. Likely awaiting Starship to do this replacement activity.

The V1.0 sats do not have ISL (Inter Sat Laser-links).
so in the future only v2? Does this indicate a failure of the concept of a lot of very small sats?
Or can we consider starlink v2 in continuation of that concept?
Basic is same total numbers of sats, but each generation to be 4X to 10X greater throughput which equates to higher per customer bit rates and as well increases of subscribers. Current basic subcriber up to 150 max and 50 min Mbps downloads would increase to 500 max and 200 min while number of supported subscribers increases by end of Generation 2 deployments of a factor of 3X subscribers per sat and 8X more sats in the gen2 constellation 30,000 vs 4,000 gen1. Current Subscriber numbers is a likely >2million. Thus at end of gen2 deployment in 2027, there would be easily about 50 million subscribers. Also is likely that at those numbers the cost per subscription may drop by 1/2 to ~$50/month for basic. That would then result in a revenue likely in the amount of $30B/yr. After 2027 expect a gen3 upgrade where each sat would have at least a 4X throughput increase that doubles downloads speeds and doubles total subscriber density. Thus after another 4/5 years as in 2031/32 the revenue would be ~$60B/yr.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 07/22/2023 08:46 pm
Yup. When you install a GEO antenna on a ship, you are supposed to program in the obstruction map as part of the installation process.
I assumed Starlink plotted obstructions using signal dropouts, which would be a little more fun on a moving ship, but I really don't know.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 07/22/2023 09:32 pm
Yup. When you install a GEO antenna on a ship, you are supposed to program in the obstruction map as part of the installation process.
I assumed Starlink plotted obstructions using signal dropouts, which would be a little more fun on a moving ship, but I really don't know.

I don't think they can do much interesting with an obstruction map beside showing warnings because they are limited to Nco=1, ie one active beam per cell. More satellites only improved the situation because that beam is now more vertical due to smaller cells. The additional v2 orbits are registered as a separate constellation, so they are now able to go to two beams at any location which could be used for a slight improvement. But ideally the FCC would find a way to allow arbitrary ground-sat connections, at least as far as I understand it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/23/2023 05:00 pm
They can't possibly be limited to one beam per cell.  Everybody would have to have a perfect view of the sky for that to work.

They'd also run out of capacity in high-subscriber-density cells.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 07/23/2023 08:51 pm
They can't possibly be limited to one beam per cell.  Everybody would have to have a perfect view of the sky for that to work.

See for example Starlink v2 authorization (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-91A1.pdf):
Quote
We therefore condition this authorization, consistent with SpaceX’s commitment on the record of this proceeding, such that SpaceX must operate its Gen2 Starlink constellation with an NCo of 1, in the 12.2-12.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) frequency band. In other words, SpaceX may not use more than one satellite beam from any of its authorized Gen2 Starlink satellites in the same frequency in the same or overlapping areas at a time.

You are right that it is not strictly one beam, they currently have 7 available bands after accounting for the loss of one due to radioastronomy protection. That was my fault. It is still severely limiting compared to the achievable separation angle for user terminals of <2° which could in theory focus dozens of satellites on a higher density area.

Also the major improvements from more satellites have not come from overlapping, but serving cells as vertically as possible. Especially early on, a lot of northerly locations (so basically most of US and EU) had to point southward to catch an available satellite, which lowered elevation angles.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/29/2023 05:35 pm
FWIW:

Elon Musk’s Unmatched Power in the Stars (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/28/business/starlink.html)  (New York Times, partially paywalled)

Quote
The tech billionaire has become the dominant power in satellite internet technology. The ways he is wielding that influence are raising global alarms.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 08/01/2023 09:39 am
SpaceX's comments on Kuiper's application SAT-MOD-20230228-00043 (https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATMOD2023022800043&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number)

Quote
rather than “accelerate the timeline” for
deployment of its commercial constellation, Amazon’s modification appears designed expressly
to enable further delay. As explained below, it seems that Amazon will use this modification—
and the ITU modification it proposes to file along with it—to falsely claim that it has brought its
commercial system into use whenever it finally gets around to launching its two experimental
satellites, while the timeline for its actual commercial deployment remains highly uncertain.

The ITU Radio Regulations require an operator to bring its satellite
constellation into use by launching a satellite into its filed-for constellation and operating within
seven years of initial filing (here, March 2026). By sneaking its two experimental satellites into
its filing to bring its entire three-thousand satellite commercial constellation into use, Amazon
seeks to conduct an end-run around its obligation to bring its commercial constellation into use by
that date. Further, Amazon appears poised to use its two experimental satellites to circumvent the
Commission’s deployment rules as well, including the still-effective unbuilt system rule and
fast approaching build-out deadlines for its gateway earth stations, for which it has not sought
extensions.

Amazon also asks to modify its authorized satellite configuration ostensibly to provide
better service to consumers. While such a request could serve the public interest, Amazon avoids
explaining how it can avoid collisions with thousands of Chinese satellites planned to share these
same orbits. This evasion is particularly troubling after Amazon’s insistence in response to a
SpaceX modification that Amazon’s system is incapable of sharing any overlapping altitudes with
other systems. Specifically, Amazon will need to share the 590-600 km altitude range that it
plans to use with a forthcoming Chinese system (ITU identifier GW-A59) with nearly 5,000
satellites. The Chinese have been launching satellites at an increasing clip, putting them well
ahead of Amazon, whose first test satellites have already been delayed by over a year. At this
rate, the Chinese system will likely be operational before Amazon launches its first commercial
satellite.

In opposing a SpaceX modification, Amazon
repeatedly and vehemently argued that its system was too fragile to operate anywhere near another
system. But Amazon’s reconfigured system will need to coexist with thousands of Chinese
satellites in similar orbits. Amazon avoided addressing this contradiction in the past by claiming
its plan was to hope that the Chinese system does not actually deploy. But as China begins to
actually launch its communications satellites in earnest, just crossing fingers is no longer a
sufficient strategy—if it ever was.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/01/2023 08:49 pm
Well, that was fun to read.  But I can't tell if it's just Elon yanking Jeff's chain, or if SpaceX is actually worried enough about Kuiper to spend significant lobbying and regulatory time trying to mess it up.

No reason it can't be both, I guess.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 08/01/2023 09:19 pm
Well, that was fun to read.  But I can't tell if it's just Elon yanking Jeff's chain, or if SpaceX is actually worried enough about Kuiper to spend significant lobbying and regulatory time trying to mess it up.

No reason it can't be both, I guess.
Possibly also a well informed first reaction to obvious issues. Not jerking Jeff's chain, but exposing Kuiper/BO as either dishonest in their previous filings (about collision risk with Starling) or seemingly blazingly irresponsible in their current plans (sharing orbital space with the Chinese constellation).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/01/2023 09:20 pm
Well, that was fun to read.  But I can't tell if it's just Elon yanking Jeff's chain, or if SpaceX is actually worried enough about Kuiper to spend significant lobbying and regulatory time trying to mess it up.

No reason it can't be both, I guess.

As far as FCC comments go, SpaceX's were very mild.  Starlink and Kuiper haven't objected all that much to each others' systems.  The systems have a lot of similarities, what with them being originated by the same team.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: tssp_art on 08/02/2023 03:58 pm
Well, that was fun to read.  But I can't tell if it's just Elon yanking Jeff's chain, or if SpaceX is actually worried enough about Kuiper to spend significant lobbying and regulatory time trying to mess it up.

No reason it can't be both, I guess.

My take is that Kuiper have realized that the chances of them hitting their halfway mark deployment deadline has dropped to near zero. This document tries to redefine the goals so, through some twisted logic, these two satellites would satisfy the mid term deadline requirements.

The Vulcan launch delay was the last straw. If they had gotten their two prototype satellites in orbit early this summer they would have had a slim chance of making it. But now, with current plans, I can't see it happening. I've heard a rumor that they might actually use one of their Atlas launches to get those sats up this fall but that's kind of a waste of the launcher and they really don't have launchers to spare.

And speaking of a wasted launch, those two satellites were shipped months ago. Why are there only two? Yes, there may be changes based on the performance of this first batch, but they're going to have to manufacture thousands of them, and soon. They must have a manufacturing system (building the "machine that makes the machines") to start producing them with at least the components that are unlikely to change. Why not send 10 or 20 or a full load? Or is Amazon taking a lesson from Blue's version of "hardware rich development" that is actually very hardware poor?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: tssp_art on 08/02/2023 11:20 pm
Well, that was fun to read.  But I can't tell if it's just Elon yanking Jeff's chain, or if SpaceX is actually worried enough about Kuiper to spend significant lobbying and regulatory time trying to mess it up.

No reason it can't be both, I guess.

My take is that Kuiper have realized that the chances of them hitting their halfway mark deployment deadline has dropped to near zero. This document tries to redefine the goals so, through some twisted logic, these two satellites would satisfy the mid term deadline requirements.

The Vulcan launch delay was the last straw. If they had gotten their two prototype satellites in orbit early this summer they would have had a slim chance of making it. But now, with current plans, I can't see it happening. I've heard a rumor that they might actually use one of their Atlas launches to get those sats up this fall but that's kind of a waste of the launcher and they really don't have launchers to spare.

And speaking of a wasted launch, those two satellites were shipped months ago. Why are there only two? Yes, there may be changes based on the performance of this first batch, but they're going to have to manufacture thousands of them, and soon. They must have a manufacturing system (building the "machine that makes the machines") to start producing them with at least the components that are unlikely to change. Why not send 10 or 20 or a full load? Or is Amazon taking a lesson from Blue's version of "hardware rich development" that is actually very hardware poor?

Did a little more digging into history; here's the Starlink timeline.
SpaceX sent up 2 test satellites but in early 2018
The team leaders of Starlink were fired in the summer of 2018 for not moving fast enough.
Those same team leaders were hired by Amazon/Kuiper 9 months later in April 2019.
SpaceX launched the first production batch of 60 satellites in May 2019 (five years before the mid term deployment deadline)
They currently have ~4000 satellites in operation
(mid term deadline for deployment of ~3000 satellites was/is November 2024.

What is most startling is that the Kuiper team (which got a jumpstart from the experience base of Starlink development team who had already designed and built and launched the first two Starlink satellites) took four years from hiring to be able to ship their first 2 prototype Kuiper satellites to ULA. And Kuiper now has less than 3 years to get the first 1626 satellites deployed and operating.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2023 01:20 am

The team leaders of Starlink were fired in the summer of 2018 for not moving fast enough.
Those same team leaders were hired by Amazon/Kuiper 9 months later in April 2019.
...
What is most startling is that the Kuiper team (which got a jumpstart from the experience base of Starlink development team who had already designed and built and launched the first two Starlink satellites) took four years from hiring to be able to ship their first 2 prototype Kuiper satellites to ULA. And Kuiper now has less than 3 years to get the first 1626 satellites deployed and operating.

Sometimes past performance is a predictor of future performance.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/03/2023 04:49 am
My take is that Kuiper have realized that the chances of them hitting their halfway mark deployment deadline has dropped to near zero. This document tries to redefine the goals so, through some twisted logic, these two satellites would satisfy the mid term deadline requirements.

The Vulcan launch delay was the last straw. If they had gotten their two prototype satellites in orbit early this summer they would have had a slim chance of making it. But now, with current plans, I can't see it happening. I've heard a rumor that they might actually use one of their Atlas launches to get those sats up this fall but that's kind of a waste of the launcher and they really don't have launchers to spare.

And speaking of a wasted launch, those two satellites were shipped months ago. Why are there only two? Yes, there may be changes based on the performance of this first batch, but they're going to have to manufacture thousands of them, and soon. They must have a manufacturing system (building the "machine that makes the machines") to start producing them with at least the components that are unlikely to change. Why not send 10 or 20 or a full load? Or is Amazon taking a lesson from Blue's version of "hardware rich development" that is actually very hardware poor?

It occurred to me that whatever deployment mechanism Kuiper uses, we can assume it fits on New Glenn (6.2m internal diameter) and Vulcan (5.4m external diameter--can anybody find the internal envelope diameter?).  But Falcon 9's external diameter is 20cm narrower than Vulcan's, so there's a pretty good chance that Kuiper can't even use F9 as a last-ditch, save-the-license strategy.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/03/2023 07:46 am
My take is that Kuiper have realized that the chances of them hitting their halfway mark deployment deadline has dropped to near zero. This document tries to redefine the goals so, through some twisted logic, these two satellites would satisfy the mid term deadline requirements.

The Vulcan launch delay was the last straw. If they had gotten their two prototype satellites in orbit early this summer they would have had a slim chance of making it. But now, with current plans, I can't see it happening. I've heard a rumor that they might actually use one of their Atlas launches to get those sats up this fall but that's kind of a waste of the launcher and they really don't have launchers to spare.

And speaking of a wasted launch, those two satellites were shipped months ago. Why are there only two? Yes, there may be changes based on the performance of this first batch, but they're going to have to manufacture thousands of them, and soon. They must have a manufacturing system (building the "machine that makes the machines") to start producing them with at least the components that are unlikely to change. Why not send 10 or 20 or a full load? Or is Amazon taking a lesson from Blue's version of "hardware rich development" that is actually very hardware poor?

It occurred to me that whatever deployment mechanism Kuiper uses, we can assume it fits on New Glenn (6.2m internal diameter) and Vulcan (5.4m external diameter--can anybody find the internal envelope diameter?).  But Falcon 9's external diameter is 20cm narrower than Vulcan's, so there's a pretty good chance that Kuiper can't even use F9 as a last-ditch, save-the-license strategy.
Kuiper has 9 Altas V launches. The Atlas V fairing is 4.2 m.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 08/03/2023 09:34 am
Kuiper has 9 Altas V launches. The Atlas V fairing is 4.2 m.
I thought they were using 551s.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/03/2023 02:09 pm
Kuiper has 9 Altas V launches. The Atlas V fairing is 4.2 m.
I thought they were using 551s.
Definitely need the 551s for volume and mass / D V performance
For just 2 prototypes they could use a 411
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: mn on 08/03/2023 02:46 pm
I understand how we got here, but by now I think the discussion can move to the Kuiper thread.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/03/2023 03:07 pm
Kuiper has 9 Altas V launches. The Atlas V fairing is 4.2 m.
I thought they were using 551s.
You are correct. Sorry, my bad. On further analysis, it appears that the payload envelope for F9 and Atlas 5xx are essentially identical and have the same interface specs, so the Kuiper Atlas dispenser should fit F9 without modification. F9R carries 25 satellites of mass instead of Atlas 551 31 satellites of mass, so at least a small change will be needed.

The F9 fairing is 5.2 m outer diameter while Atlas V big fairing is 5.4 meter outer diameter.
The F9 payload envelope has dia of 4.57 m, I think:
    https://www.spacex.com/media/falcon-users-guide-2021-09.pdf  (see fig 12-10 on page 84)
Atlas V has an essentially identical envelope, also with a dia of 4.57 m  I think:
      https://www.ulalaunch.com/rockets/atlas-v    (see fig in the "Payload fairings" section)
I'm guessing we will find that this was an NSSL/EELV specification.

However: SpaceX has a caveat about reusable fairings that may impinge in some way on this envelope. I got the impression that the impingement is in the area below the attachment plate, but I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/03/2023 03:41 pm
<snip>
However: SpaceX has a caveat about reusable fairings that may impinge in some way on this envelope. I got the impression that the impingement is in the area below the attachment plate, but I'm not sure.<snip>
The $6M added for expendable payload fairings is still cheaper for the cost per satcom launched than using the Atlas V 551.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/03/2023 06:15 pm
<snip>
However: SpaceX has a caveat about reusable fairings that may impinge in some way on this envelope. I got the impression that the impingement is in the area below the attachment plate, but I'm not sure.<snip>
The $6M added for expendable payload fairings is still cheaper for the cost per satcom launched than using the Atlas V 551.

The only way that Kuiper would use F9's is if they were truly desperate and the FCC wouldn't budge on the deployment deadlines.  I'd forgotten that they were using a small number of Atlas V's, so it does appear possible to use the F9.  But since they'd be desperate, then if they have to use expendable fairing halves, they would.

I suspect that SpaceX would be happy to sell them F9 launches--at almost no discount.  And it would bring up an interesting policy question for SpaceX:  So far, they've always deferred to paying customers over Starlink launches (hah!  a smidgeon of something on-topic!).  If SpaceX is gouging Kuiper on F9 launches, do they let their competitor out-launch them?  Of course, that could become moot when Starship is up and running at the Cape...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 08/03/2023 07:17 pm
 Most of SpaceX's non government customers are ones that Starlink threatens to put out of business. Those guys are putting the late, great Philippe Petite to shame with their balancing act. They need to be of honest value to their clients  while using their client's money to compete with them. An irony I'm sure isn't lost on any of them.
 But in the end, every company needs to base their decisions on the real world, not the world they think should be.
 (Was that vague enough? I could try harder after a few more Bulgarian Guinnesses)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/04/2023 08:37 pm
Most of SpaceX's non government customers are ones that Starlink threatens to put out of business.

Meh.  The operators (with the exception of the HTS and VHTS GEO operators) don't care that much.  The bus manufacturers are another story.  I suspect that StarShield has them terrified.

And I'm not that sure that the HTS and VHTS operators should despair just yet.  They have a lot of bandwidth available, and Starlink and other LEO ISPs can likely offload certain classes of traffic (content distribution being the biggie) to them as the market matures.  I think there are more shoes to drop in this area.

Bulgarian Guinness? Are they a licensee?  A bottler?  Is it made with genuine Danube Delta river water, complete with silt?  It kinda sounds like the setup for a joke with no punch line.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/04/2023 09:29 pm
<snip>
And I'm not that sure that the HTS and VHTS operators should despair just yet.  They have a lot of bandwidth available, and Starlink and other LEO ISPs can likely offload certain classes of traffic (content distribution being the biggie) to them as the market matures.  I think there are more shoes to drop in this area.
<snip>
Ahem. There is nothing stopping Starlink from flying up UHTS GEO satcoms with many many transponders. Maybe even using the Starship chassis as the satcom bus. AIUI they might have to buy out someone to get a GEO slot for their comsat. That shouldn't be difficult or too costly.

UHTS = Ultra High Throughput Satellite (orbital platform with humongous solar arrays) with bandwidth in 10s of Terabit/s.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/04/2023 09:55 pm
<snip>
And I'm not that sure that the HTS and VHTS operators should despair just yet.  They have a lot of bandwidth available, and Starlink and other LEO ISPs can likely offload certain classes of traffic (content distribution being the biggie) to them as the market matures.  I think there are more shoes to drop in this area.
<snip>
Ahem. There is nothing stopping Starlink from flying up UHTS GEO satcoms with many many transponders. Maybe even using the Starship chassis as the satcom bus. AIUI they might have to buy out someone to get a GEO slot for their comsat. That shouldn't be difficult or too costly.

UHTS = Ultra High Throughput Satellite (orbital platform with humongous solar arrays) with bandwidth in 10s of Terabit/s.

I think a UHTS Starlink breaks the business model.  The advantage of StarShield is that it's a small, relatively low power, highly customizable bus that's easy to launch.  HTS/VHTS/UHTS relies on extremely large buses.

I also don't think that SpaceX cares about competing with GEO birds, at least any more than they already are.  What they will care about is maximizing subscribers per Starlink LEO bird (which is, admittedly, a more statistical value than it is with a GEO bird).  If they can buy wholesale bandwidth from GEO operators to reduce the load on gateways and ISL links, they will.  It's not really any different than buying fiber bandwidth from terrestrial transit ISPs to connect the gateways to the broader Internet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/04/2023 10:14 pm
Other companies have lots of bandwidth. What they won't have anymore is justification for what they've been charging for it. Business case and all.

If you're in space because you want to sell ground-to-ground communications services, sure.  But lots of operators have applications (e.g. remote sensing) that merely want to use ground-to-ground (and space-to-ground) communications services.  Those guys have a biz case because of things like Starlink (and... you know... plummeting launch costs).

I agree that the GEO guys are gonna have to adjust from a retail to a wholesale biz model, but wholesale is already the majority of most of their businesses.  Getting out of the retail biz will likely kill off a couple of them, and drive down $/Mbps/month a bit faster than the others would like, but it's already a highly elastic market:  if the cost drops, demand increases.  I'll be very surprised if they don't all stay fully subscribed.

Now:  I don't know what happens to the new GEO builds.  If I had to guess, those guys are pretty busy figuring out how to make cheaper, dumber birds that can capitalize on low launch costs and higher launch performance.  But where those launch and performance improvements close with what's possible with manufacturing cost improvements?  No clue.  And of course there simply may not be a biz case that closes for a few years while the tech sorts itself out.

PS:  Think of Starlink as a last-mile ISP, and the GEO guys as transit ISPs, and you won't go far wrong.  The analogy is imperfect, especially since space transit has to compete with terrestrial transit, but I think there's enough money in the satellite-based content distribution market to saturate GEO bandwidth several times over.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ZachF on 08/06/2023 01:03 pm
Kuiper has 9 Altas V launches. The Atlas V fairing is 4.2 m.
I thought they were using 551s.

I think it's 552s?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gtae07 on 08/08/2023 03:46 pm
I was idly browsing the various Starlink launch threads and noticed a couple of things that have me puzzled..

1. Why are all of the recent Florida launches on a southeast trajectory instead of northeast?  I'm pretty sure they can hit an equivalent inclination going "the other way" and I thought the southeast trajectories were usually preferred for winter ops due to weather.  Unless for some reason they want to avoid launching during daytime (storms?) and the needed orbital slots dictate a southeast launch?

2. Mission 6-20 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59260.0) launched with a substantial dogleg and "only" carried 15 satellites.  That seems like a pretty expensive hit to take just to launch into an inclination you can hit from the east coast.  Why?  Is there a limiting factor to hitting their desired launch cadence from the Cape (like pad/ASDS availability ) that it's still worth the performance hit?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Ghoti on 08/08/2023 03:59 pm
I was idly browsing the various Starlink launch threads and noticed a couple of things that have me puzzled..

1. Why are all of the recent Florida launches on a southeast trajectory instead of northeast?  I'm pretty sure they can hit an equivalent inclination going "the other way" and I thought the southeast trajectories were usually preferred for winter ops due to weather.  Unless for some reason they want to avoid launching during daytime (storms?) and the needed orbital slots dictate a southeast launch?

2. Mission 6-20 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59260.0) launched with a substantial dogleg and "only" carried 15 satellites.  That seems like a pretty expensive hit to take just to launch into an inclination you can hit from the east coast.  Why?  Is there a limiting factor to hitting their desired launch cadence from the Cape (like pad/ASDS availability ) that it's still worth the performance hit?
1 is mostly related to the probability of favorable weather including downrange landing conditions.
2 is due to launching 15 rather than 22 is much better than launching 0 because of limitations to ASDS and pad availability on the east coast. Using the 3rd pad increases throughput.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/08/2023 05:01 pm
I was idly browsing the various Starlink launch threads and noticed a couple of things that have me puzzled..

1. Why are all of the recent Florida launches on a southeast trajectory instead of northeast?  I'm pretty sure they can hit an equivalent inclination going "the other way" and I thought the southeast trajectories were usually preferred for winter ops due to weather.  Unless for some reason they want to avoid launching during daytime (storms?) and the needed orbital slots dictate a southeast launch?
<snip>
1 is mostly related to the probability of favorable weather including downrange landing conditions.
<snip>
Launching toward the Southeast from Florida also avoids closing airspace to commercial air traffic.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/13/2023 02:34 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1701966590919459209

Quote
SpaceX is no longer taking losses to produce Starlink antennas, VP Jonathan Hofeller said at #WSBW, a key milestone as the company improves the profitability of its satellite internet business:

Quote
SpaceX said Starlink terminals initially cost about $3,000 each to manufacture, which improved to about $1,300 each by early 2021. Now, the terminals cost less to make than the $599 each that Starlink customers pay for the terminals.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/13/spacex-no-longer-taking-losses-to-produce-starlink-satellite-antennas.html

Quote
SpaceX no longer taking losses to produce Starlink satellite antennas, a key step to improving profitability
PUBLISHED WED, SEP 13 202310:23 AM EDT


Michael Sheetz
@IN/MICHAELJSHEETZ
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

SpaceX is no longer absorbing the cost of the Starlink antennas that it sells with its satellite internet service, a company executive said on Wednesday.

“We were subsidizing terminals but we’ve been iterating on our terminal production so much that we’re no longer subsidizing terminals, which is a good place to be,” Jonathan Hofeller, SpaceX vice president of Starlink and commercial sales, said during a panel at the World Satellite Business Week conference.

SpaceX sells consumer Starlink antennas, also known as user terminals, for $599 each.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/13/2023 03:06 pm
https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1701928936609821081

https://twitter.com/tmfassociates/status/1701945072219279524

https://twitter.com/jackkuhr/status/1701970642575200394

Not sure how I should read into these numbers…
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/13/2023 03:11 pm
As there are about 1200 phased array antenna elements in each dish, that means each element is about 50¢ now. Pretty good!

The more antenna elements (and thus larger) the terminal can be at the same cost, the greater the maximum total bandwidth you can get even with the same frequency allocation. Not only is the gain higher, but you can also reject noise sources better. You can in principle even use geometric multiplexing to get signals from multiple satellites at the same frequency.

And this is multiplied by likely similar improvements on the satellite side.

This is how Starlink can keep growing and growing in capacity with no hard limits based on frequency, only on cost of the phased array elements on both sides.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 09/13/2023 04:02 pm
You can in principle even use geometric multiplexing to get signals from multiple satellites at the same frequency.

In principle you can do so, but Starlink's licenses are based on NCo=1 (number of concurrent beams) for each of the two constellations.  So the geometric multiplexing will be limited to two satellites at a time.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: niwax on 09/13/2023 04:11 pm
https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1701928936609821081

https://twitter.com/tmfassociates/status/1701945072219279524

https://twitter.com/jackkuhr/status/1701970642575200394

Not sure how I should read into these numbers…

Farrar is at vest - ahem - unreliable, and often the opposite of what is actually happening. The numbers here are technically correct, but that forecast is over half a decade old. We know they are a bit over a year behind their optimistic timeline and growing at 5x a year, so being 10x behind on revenue is just as expected.

Most interesting for me is that a minimum profitable Starlink product can now be as low as $18 a month on a 36 month contract, dish included.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 09/13/2023 04:21 pm
So taking the number of customers by date (https://starlinkinsider.com/starlink-statistics/ (https://starlinkinsider.com/starlink-statistics/)) and optimistically adding 0.1M new customers per month since May, plus assuming a monotonously-decreasing loss per customer in each antenna until 0 loss by now, along with the (unrealistic, by what we know) assumption that each quoted customer gets a single antenna and pays the retail price for it...

We get an approximate loss of $1B throughout Starlink's history, JUST in antenna fabrication, or just about 60% of all revenue (excluding 2023's). Of course, ground infrastructure and sales, not to mention launches and satellites cost something, even if low-cost, which we can safely assume to be (quite a bit) more than the antenna losses. So we can confidently say Starlink has so far not only not paid for Starship, but detracted quite a bit from the resources available for it. Which is fine and expectable, just not the way it was advertised.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/13/2023 06:12 pm
You can in principle even use geometric multiplexing to get signals from multiple satellites at the same frequency.

In principle you can do so, but Starlink's licenses are based on NCo=1 (number of concurrent beams) for each of the two constellations.  So the geometric multiplexing will be limited to two satellites at a time.
You can also do it at the satellite side by using smaller and smaller geographic cells. And even without concurrent beams, you can still more carefully focus the beam upwards, avoiding other users of the same frequency at closer range than before and have higher gain for the same power and have better rejection of interference.

And the approved limits can also be increased.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 09/13/2023 07:29 pm
So taking the number of customers by date (https://starlinkinsider.com/starlink-statistics/ (https://starlinkinsider.com/starlink-statistics/)) and optimistically adding 0.1M new customers per month since May, plus assuming a monotonously-decreasing loss per customer in each antenna until 0 loss by now, along with the (unrealistic, by what we know) assumption that each quoted customer gets a single antenna and pays the retail price for it...

We get an approximate loss of $1B throughout Starlink's history, JUST in antenna fabrication, or just about 60% of all revenue (excluding 2023's). Of course, ground infrastructure and sales, not to mention launches and satellites cost something, even if low-cost, which we can safely assume to be (quite a bit) more than the antenna losses. So we can confidently say Starlink has so far not only not paid for Starship, but detracted quite a bit from the resources available for it. Which is fine and expectable, just not the way it was advertised.

I don't disagree with these particular guesses and the math saying that starlink investments to date may be greater than starlink revenues to date.

i do think it is worth pointing out that starlink represents a steady, predictable revenue stream.  Not only a revenue stream, but next year's revenue is pretty easy to estimate.   We know it's profitable.

From this point forward, starlink can pump money into starship development as needed.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/13/2023 07:45 pm
Starlink’s full size is about 42,000 satellites of 2 tonnes each. 84,000,000kg.

Vulcan is optimistically about $5000/kg. $120m for 24tonnes. (Price if you have a lot of launches, but necessarily external price)

Falcon 9, optimistically, is $1000/kg. $15-20 million for 17 tonnes. (This is internal cost.)

Starship is around $100/kg, maybe some day less.

Launching the full constellation on Vulcan would be $420 billion. On Falcon 9, $84 billion. On Starship, $8.4 billion. And you need to do this every 5-10 years.

So Starship saves Starlink about $75 billion in costs, maybe $7.5-15 billion per year in launch costs compared to even their super cheap workhorse of Falcon 9.

So yeah, it’s very much in the interests of the Starlink arm of SpaceX for Starship to succeed, and it’s justifiable for Starlink to pour billions of dollars per year in getting Starship operational and reliable.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 09/13/2023 08:43 pm
i do think it is worth pointing out that starlink represents a steady, predictable revenue stream.  Not only a revenue stream, but next year's revenue is pretty easy to estimate.   We know it's profitable.

From this point forward, starlink can pump money into starship development as needed.

I agree it's a fairly predictable revenue stream, within reason (since the whole LEO connectivity business plan is far from settled).

I do not agree that "we know it's profitable". We know a certain revenue is there, at about $1.4B/0.5M customers on average last year = $2800/avg customer (which is actually quite a lot, and clearly includes revenue from contracts outside individual subscribers). There are projections of 2.5M customers by this year's end, with an estimated $5.5B revenue stream, which would actually raise the revenue per average customer by 15% for some reason. But anyway, SpaceX's own estimates from not so long ago also called for 20M customers by last year (40x actual) and a revenue of $12B (9x actual), for a self-projected (!) revenue per average client of $600. In other words, even insider projections are quite bad at predicting reality.

In any case, this is revenue, not profit.

I made the accounting based on the net loss for the antennas ONLY. Evidently the other cash outflows I mentioned (ground segment, sales as a whole apart from the antennas, satellites, launches and last but not least the salaries of those developing and operating the system, which are surely not a bunch of amateurs) are hefty. We're not privy to how much they actually cost to SpaceX, but they certainly are mainly pure losses from the start - and they are very likely much more expensive than the antenna losses.

I mean, even assuming the extremely hyped figure of $250k/satellite that was floated around in 2019 (for v1.0 sats without laser comms or gyros, mind you), while ignoring that the v1.5-v2 birds are certainly way more costly, plus the R&D that went into them, we get $1.25B of expenses for just the physical space segment, plus whatever the launches cost to SpaceX internally (along with the figure per satellite above, $15M was quoted for a Starlink F9 launch, so for about 100 Starlink launches a total cost of $1.5B is probably the bare minimum) - very likely exceeding $3B by the space segment deployment alone. Add sales, salaries, ground segment stations and backhaul... and you're easily slipping into the $5B territory - against which the $1B antenna loss starts looking minor, and profitability shrinks in the rearview.

This shouldn't come as a surprise: Musk himself noted v1 Starlink is "financially weak".

Note these last numbers are very unlikely to significantly diminish in the medium term: salaries will need to keep being paid, S/C production will continue being expensive with the full-sized v2s and the unprecedented amounts to be launched -if we believe the official line- by Starship, which will also contribute in a significant way even if you believe in its potential for insane cost reductions, ground segment will need upgrades and expansions, constellation replenishment due to the finite lifetimes of LEO for thousands of satellites will also start mattering in a couple of years...

It can be made profitable, maybe. But profitability doesn't start "from this point forward", by far.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: cpushack on 09/13/2023 11:33 pm
i do think it is worth pointing out that starlink represents a steady, predictable revenue stream.  Not only a revenue stream, but next year's revenue is pretty easy to estimate.   We know it's profitable.

From this point forward, starlink can pump money into starship development as needed.

I agree it's a fairly predictable revenue stream, within reason (since the whole LEO connectivity business plan is far from settled).

I do not agree that "we know it's profitable". We know a certain revenue is there, at about $1.4B/0.5M customers on average last year = $2800/avg customer (which is actually quite a lot, and clearly includes revenue from contracts outside individual subscribers). There are projections of 2.5M customers by this year's end, with an estimated $5.5B revenue stream, which would actually raise the revenue per average customer by 15% for some reason. But anyway, SpaceX's own estimates from not so long ago also called for 20M customers by last year (40x actual) and a revenue of $12B (9x actual), for a self-projected (!) revenue per average client of $600. In other words, even insider projections are quite bad at predicting reality.

In any case, this is revenue, not profit.

I made the accounting based on the net loss for the antennas ONLY. Evidently the other cash outflows I mentioned (ground segment, sales as a whole apart from the antennas, satellites, launches and last but not least the salaries of those developing and operating the system, which are surely not a bunch of amateurs) are hefty. We're not privy to how much they actually cost to SpaceX, but they certainly are mainly pure losses from the start - and they are very likely much more expensive than the antenna losses.

I mean, even assuming the extremely hyped figure of $250k/satellite that was floated around in 2019 (for v1.0 sats without laser comms or gyros, mind you), while ignoring that the v1.5-v2 birds are certainly way more costly, plus the R&D that went into them, we get $1.25B of expenses for just the physical space segment, plus whatever the launches cost to SpaceX internally (along with the figure per satellite above, $15M was quoted for a Starlink F9 launch, so for about 100 Starlink launches a total cost of $1.5B is probably the bare minimum) - very likely exceeding $3B by the space segment deployment alone. Add sales, salaries, ground segment stations and backhaul... and you're easily slipping into the $5B territory - against which the $1B antenna loss starts looking minor, and profitability shrinks in the rearview.

This shouldn't come as a surprise: Musk himself noted v1 Starlink is "financially weak".

Note these last numbers are very unlikely to significantly diminish in the medium term: salaries will need to keep being paid, S/C production will continue being expensive with the full-sized v2s and the unprecedented amounts to be launched -if we believe the official line- by Starship, which will also contribute in a significant way even if you believe in its potential for insane cost reductions, ground segment will need upgrades and expansions, constellation replenishment due to the finite lifetimes of LEO for thousands of satellites will also start mattering in a couple of years...

It can be made profitable, maybe. But profitability doesn't start "from this point forward", by far.

It was stated at the beginning of this year that Starlink IS profitable now
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/02/spacex-starlink-profitable-in-2023-and-starts-countdown-to-starlink-ipo.html
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Exastro on 09/14/2023 01:36 am
i do think it is worth pointing out that starlink represents a steady, predictable revenue stream.  Not only a revenue stream, but next year's revenue is pretty easy to estimate.   We know it's profitable.

From this point forward, starlink can pump money into starship development as needed.

I agree it's a fairly predictable revenue stream, within reason (since the whole LEO connectivity business plan is far from settled).

I do not agree that "we know it's profitable"....

I mean, even assuming the extremely hyped figure of $250k/satellite that was floated around in 2019 (for v1.0 sats without laser comms or gyros, mind you), while ignoring that the v1.5-v2 birds are certainly way more costly, plus the R&D that went into them, we get $1.25B of expenses for just the physical space segment, plus whatever the launches cost to SpaceX internally (along with the figure per satellite above, $15M was quoted for a Starlink F9 launch, so for about 100 Starlink launches a total cost of $1.5B is probably the bare minimum) - very likely exceeding $3B by the space segment deployment alone. Add sales, salaries, ground segment stations and backhaul... and you're easily slipping into the $5B territory - against which the $1B antenna loss starts looking minor, and profitability shrinks in the rearview.

It was stated at the beginning of this year that Starlink IS profitable now
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/02/spacex-starlink-profitable-in-2023-and-starts-countdown-to-starlink-ipo.html (https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/02/spacex-starlink-profitable-in-2023-and-starts-countdown-to-starlink-ipo.html)


FWIW, This Teslarati article (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-no-longer-losing-money-starlink-antenna-production/) says building and selling the ground terminals no represents a net cost to Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 09/14/2023 05:30 am
It was stated at the beginning of this year that Starlink IS profitable now
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/02/spacex-starlink-profitable-in-2023-and-starts-countdown-to-starlink-ipo.html

Way to take a single datapoint and ignore a myriad others.

Shotwell (who also assured a short time ago they'd be landing cargo lunar Starships before 2022) was quoted as saying Starlink turned "cash-flow positive" in some quarter lf 2022. She also assures they were "on track" to being profitable this year, which remains to be seen, and can be as solid a prediction as 2015's $12B revenue for last year. So that's quite a fair ways away from "knowing Starlink IS profitable now". The same article also predicts 1M customers a month this year, which is demonstrably not the case, among other  optimistic extrapolations.

There was some profit in part of last year, which could be due to a momentary boost in subscriptions (cue Ukrainian war), them going through the old satellite stock while pausing v2 dev due to Starship status... among many other less obvious accounting. They also expected a profitable 2023 extrapolating from that case - and it's the company's CEO speaking, so she may have some interest in projecting the best plausible case, methinks. Still, if they've spent upwards of $5B, mostly from capital investments, these will need to be paid back with interests, so it's not like you can ignore past losses the moment you get more back than your operating costs during a certain month.

Teslarati's article states the same as a previously quoted tweet I used in my antenna loss estimate, no new info there. They talk about the user antennas, not the ground segment.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: matthewkantar on 09/14/2023 06:18 am
I’d bet Ukraine stuff is a vanishingly small bit of Starlink revenue.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: laszlo on 09/17/2023 12:57 pm
I serendipitously saw my first Starlink satellite train last night. It was G6-16 passing over the DC Metro area. I was checking on night sky visibility by looking for Alcor and Mizar when up near the end of the Big Dipper's (the Plough's for you folks on the other shore) handle I saw what looked like a jet dragging a contrail with moonlight reflecting off it. Except that we're currently in a waxing crescent phase, so the Moon was down.

Through the binoculars it was obvious what it was. As it got closer, the individual satellites resolved into dots, even with the naked eye. The lead satellite was much brighter than the rest. Would that be because that was the Falcon upper stage?

I tried to get my wife to see it, but she came from a room bathed in light and had the wrong glasses on and the binoculars weren't focused for her, so she was extremely unimpressed. When I tried to explain waht she was trying to look at, her response was, "Oh, so it's sh***ing satellites." Yes dear.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: tssp_art on 09/17/2023 09:19 pm
Shotwell (who also assured a short time ago they'd be landing cargo lunar Starships before 2022)

In October of 2019 she expressed SpaceX aspirations - the actual quote from the Techcrunch article said as much -

Quote
“Aspirationally, we want to get Starship to orbit within a year,” Shotwell said. “We definitely want to land it on the Moon before 2022. We want to […] stage cargo there to make sure that there are resources for the folks that ultimately land on the Moon by 2024, if things go well, so that’s the aspirational time frame.”

That’s an ambitious timeline, and as Shotwell herself repeatedly stated, these are “aspirational” timelines.

You go on to misquote Shotwell on profitability - the "on track" to profitability comes from the article's author which is also true of many of the other misquotes.

She also assures they were "on track" to being profitable this year, which remains to be seen,

And since Starlink is an internal and integral part of SpaceX and none of us know whether they are even a P&L (Profit & Loss) center they will likely never be able to claim "profitability" until and unless they are a separate entity.

And again, a reminder that your other citations are of predictions, not from Shotwell or even SpaceX but from the article's overly optimistic author.

The same article also predicts 1M customers a month this year, which is demonstrably not the case, among other optimistic extrapolations.
...
They also expected a profitable 2023 extrapolating from that case - and it's the company's CEO speaking, so she may have some interest in projecting the best plausible case, methinks.

First, it's not the company's CEO speaking, it's the article's author speaking, guessing and wildly extrapolating on his own.

Second, for the record, Gwynne Shotwell is not the company's CEO either. She is the President and Chief Operating Officer which limits her authority, view and voice to operations. The CEO is Elon Musk who retains corporate-wide executive authority, view and voice.

Third, SpaceX is a privately held company, not a publicly traded company. When someone invests in that company it is based exclusively on the offering ("the prospectus") by that company to invite private investment and it is only open to "qualified investors" who understand the risks. The public meanderings of trade journal authors or their interpretations of the meanderings of company officials mean nothing. Your innuendo that "she may have some interest in projecting the best plausible case, methinks" is both misdirected and wrong. Methinks.

if they've spent upwards of $5B, mostly from capital investments, these will need to be paid back with interests, so it's not like you can ignore past losses the moment you get more back than your operating costs during a certain month.

Wrong again. You're right that there have been capital investment by outsiders but they are buying equity - stock not bonds. Buying stock is placing a bet on the future of the company being invested in. It is NOT a loan that "will need to be paid back with interest". If Musk ever decides to spinoff Starlink as an offering (private or public) to be it's own corporate entity the debt that is assigned to it may reflect the the sunk cost or not. It may be less than, equal to, or much more than that investment depending on the purpose and desired outcome of the offering. Financial instruments that govern these transactions are tweaked and tuned to attract and incentivize the desired outcome. 

There is much speculation that Starlink is intended to be the "cash cow" that will (partially) fund Mars colonization. If that's true it may be much easier to keep it as an integral part of a privately held SpaceX entity rather than having to deal with investors that expect the directors and managers to be focused on maximizing the return to shareholders.

And there is no question that Starlink is running behind the aspirational schedule articulated for it. But anyone who follows this closely and factually (especially with the help of L2) knows they may be behind schedule but they are ten (or so) years ahead of everyone else.

Similarly, Starship may be far behind the where SpaceX wanted to be but far enough ahead of everyone else to justify the term "game changer".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: meekGee on 09/18/2023 04:12 am
Besides, I don't think Starlink was ever proposed as a means to fund Starship development.  It was proposed as a means to fund the Mara colony drive, hundreds of outbound ships per synod, and everything implied by that. It's a much bigger game, but also on a later schedule.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/18/2023 06:48 am
Besides, I don't think Starlink was ever proposed as a means to fund Starship development.  It was proposed as a means to fund the Mara colony drive, hundreds of outbound ships per synod, and everything implied by that. It's a much bigger game, but also on a later schedule.

You know, maybe I take for granted what seems common knowledge to me, but is not the case for those who do not follow Elon’s statements as closely. But the above has been made plain by Elon himself, and people are just ignorant when they claim the contrary.

The funding model to develop Starship was definitely not Starlink, but was in fact “selling underpants”. And that’s a direct quote.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: meekGee on 09/18/2023 08:51 am
Besides, I don't think Starlink was ever proposed as a means to fund Starship development.  It was proposed as a means to fund the Mara colony drive, hundreds of outbound ships per synod, and everything implied by that. It's a much bigger game, but also on a later schedule.

You know, maybe I take for granted what seems common knowledge to me, but is not the case for those who do not follow Elon’s statements as closely. But the above has been made plain by Elon himself, and people are just ignorant when they claim the contrary.

The funding model to develop Starship was definitely not Starlink, but was in fact “selling underpants”. And that’s a direct quote.
Yup.  He also said that only SL2 will "have a business case" or something to that effect.  (This was before the SL2 mini)

And SL2 requires SS.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 09/18/2023 11:43 am
[far too long a quote to keep, apologies]

There's "aspirations" and there's wishful thinking. When does an aspiration that doesn't hold a snowball's chance in hell become a falsity, or at least a dishonest way of communication? I can have the aspiration to own a $1M home in a year's time with a $50k salary, "if all goes well" (i.e. if I happen to invest in something like 2020's scam, which is well within the realm of plausibility yet probabilistically akin to winning 3 lotteries in a row), and then proceed to build castles in the sky from it.

We know reasonably well now there was never any chance for an orbital Starship in 2020, given neither the infrastructure nor the booster itself were anywhere near ready. This was reasonably expectable in late 2019 too for interested observers - much more for the company's officials. There was even less of a chance, obviously -and going no further than *current* internal, optimistic estimates from SpaceX that show a multi-year period between orbital capability and lunar missions- of landing a Starship on the Moon before 2022. Doesn't matter how you choose to parse the "definitely", it conveys a sense of certainty that is out of the realm of veracity.

But none of this is really on-point - I was using the above examples to show how Shotwell's proclivity to speak in the most optimistic terms possible, regarding Starlink profitability in particular, could not be used to even back the statement that we *know* of the *current* profitability of the system. You accuse me of misquoting -which I did not, unless you choose to sidestep every possible implication that speaks against your preconceived outcome- while you accuse the author of being "overly optimistic", and I'm quoting you literally here. However, while it's true the "on track" expression comes from the article's author, as should be evident to anybody reading the article, actually Shotwell's wording was even more definite: "This year, Starlink will make money.", despite you choosing to overlook it as with the above literal quote about orbital/lunar Starships. If anything, the author was overly prudent with respect to the company line. By the way, true that Shotwell is NOT CEO, just as true that her voice is subject to said company line, which further emphasizes this is not just her being overly optimistic. Your remark about her NOT having "interest in projecting the best plausible case" for the company's perspectives is quite disingenuous, no matter how much due diligence the company exerts towards its investors and their risk-benefit analyses, as the case would be for any high-ranking officer in any company.

Finally, the statement about the financial labyrinths of investing agents in SpaceX misses the point too: I never spoke about "loans", which you insert next to my quote as if I had. Guess that's not misquoting. The "bet on the future of the company" you mention is evidently one of profitability toward the investment, so investors DO have an expectation in that sense, no matter how nuanced. A loan can have an associated risk, by the way, and can in some circumstances be considered a bet too, but I digress into boring economics. Private investments in SpaceX are not grants or permanent loans, at least not the vast majority of them. They are intended as a way to make money from the disbursed amount, moreover within a reasonable timeframe - including what the company may consider sunk costs, cost of doing business, or other terms. If they don't, no matter how many asterisks you put around their terms and conditions, at the minimum there will eventually be a pull-out, or just unhappy investors no longer willing to risk it.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: tssp_art on 09/18/2023 06:29 pm
There's "aspirations" and there's wishful thinking. When does an aspiration that doesn't hold a snowball's chance in hell become a falsity, or at least a dishonest way of communication? I can have the aspiration to own a $1M home in a year's time with a $50k salary, "if all goes well" (i.e. if I happen to invest in something like 2020's scam, which is well within the realm of plausibility yet probabilistically akin to winning 3 lotteries in a row), and then proceed to build castles in the sky from it.

We know reasonably well now there was never any chance for an orbital Starship in 2020, given neither the infrastructure nor the booster itself were anywhere near ready. This was reasonably expectable in late 2019 too for interested observers - much more for the company's officials. There was even less of a chance, obviously -and going no further than *current* internal, optimistic estimates from SpaceX that show a multi-year period between orbital capability and lunar missions- of landing a Starship on the Moon before 2022. Doesn't matter how you choose to parse the "definitely", it conveys a sense of certainty that is out of the realm of veracity.

You seem to be convinced that you are entitled to accurate or at least realistic estimates and that anything less is a lie (a "falsity") and is somehow a "dishonest way of communication." Well, you're not so entitled. What you are getting is likely the same expectations they are loading on to the development team to keep them motivated. You may not agree with that tactic but I assure that SpaceX does not care about your expectations.

When Musk provides a schedule estimate I automatically chuckle, roll my eyes and assume it will take somewhere between 2 and 20 times longer. When Shotwell declares what SpaceX "wants" (vs say, "expects")  I tend to assume the higher end of those multiples.

It's only when I read the prospectus for investing in SpaceX that I expect (and get) all of the cautions about what the uncertainties and risks are about achieving goals and schedules.

But none of this is really on-point - I was using the above examples to show how Shotwell's proclivity to speak in the most optimistic terms possible, regarding Starlink profitability in particular, could not be used to even back the statement that we *know* of the *current* profitability of the system. You accuse me of misquoting -which I did not, unless you choose to sidestep every possible implication that speaks against your preconceived outcome- while you accuse the author of being "overly optimistic", and I'm quoting you literally here. However, while it's true the "on track" expression comes from the article's author, as should be evident to anybody reading the article, actually Shotwell's wording was even more definite: "This year, Starlink will make money.", despite you choosing to overlook it as with the above literal quote about orbital/lunar Starships.

I assure you I did not "overlook" Shotwell's choice of words. "This year, Starlink will make money", simply reinforces the positive cash flow of the Starlink program - they will be collecting more cash in revenue than they are spending in expenses so subtracting expenses from revenue is a positive number and thus they are "making money". For Starlink to be "profitable" the money going out would also have to include the appropriate share of the G&A (General and Adminstrative) costs as well as servicing the debt of their share of capital investments costs, their share of taxes, depreciation and everything else associated with running a business. As the former CEO of a wholly owned subsidiary, I can tell you that those "shares" are not determined unless and until a subsidiary is ready to be separated from its parent. At this point the only profitability figure SpaceX can provide (but is not obligated to) is for SpaceX as a whole and, according to the Wall Street Journal, it turned profitable in Q1 of 2023.

And I'm, sorry but this is just boring. You can continue to attribute all optimistic and unrealistic schedules to malice or whatever crimes you can invent for the executives leading the most innovative and accomplished aerospace company in history. I will continue to stand in awe of their accomplishments and their audacity toward the future. If that labels me as an optimist, so be it.

Robert Heinlein may have said it best about not becoming a pessimist -

      "A pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 09/18/2023 07:15 pm
You seem to be convinced that you are entitled to accurate or at least realistic estimates and that anything less is a lie (a "falsity") and is somehow a "dishonest way of communication." Well, you're not so entitled. What you are getting is likely the same expectations they are loading on to the development team to keep them motivated. You may not agree with that tactic but I assure that SpaceX does not care about your expectations.

When Musk provides a schedule estimate I automatically chuckle, roll my eyes and assume it will take somewhere between 2 and 20 times longer. When Shotwell declares what SpaceX "wants" (vs say, "expects")  I tend to assume the higher end of those multiples.[...]

And I'm, sorry but this is just boring. You can continue to attribute all optimistic and unrealistic schedules to malice or whatever crimes you can invent for the executives leading the most innovative and accomplished aerospace company in history. I will continue to stand in awe of their accomplishments and their audacity toward the future. If that labels me as an optimist, so be it.

Robert Heinlein may have said it best about not becoming a pessimist -

      "A pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."


Again with this 'entitlement' BS. I will call a spade a spade when I see one, and the only way me, you, or anyone else has to judge how much of a spade it is, is by comparing reality to claims. Not only that, but also checking *why* reality differs as much as it does from the claims. It's not the same them suffering schedule slips because of weather than not standing a chance of honoring them since the beginning. There is plenty of information out there to infer pretty solidly what's going on without the esoteric need for an investment prospectus.

It's your choice to see entitlement in being weary of whoever chooses to be irrealistic/dishonest, especially when they willingly decide to publicize information that does not correspond to even their optimistic schedules, with an agenda, and the common discourse accepts them acritically, plus tries to impose them on whoever points out the disconnect. You claim it's your default attitude when expectations are set by SpaceX personnel, yet your previous message was not along those lines - in fact, it tried to blame a journalist for "overly optimistic", "wild extrapolations", when he in fact just tamed the actual literal quotes.

Anyway, the cynism implicit in this kremlinology (worse, financiology) is really boring for me - just as you find critical analysis of wildly unrealistic recent schedules so too. I'm interested in seeing through the murk as well as possible, appealing as seldom as possible to "unknowable" factors, in order to informedly make judgments over present status and future developments based on past events - not on pure faith on "the most innovative and accomplished aerospace company in history". As many have said before: Boca Chica does not closely mirror other successful SpaceX developments. Authority arguments never worked out for me, much less when they predict outcomes far away from reality on a regular basis about a certain topic.

So yeah, let's agree to disagree on our "pessimistic"/"optimistic" analysis philosophies.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/18/2023 07:50 pm
Boca Chica looks exactly like other SpaceX accomplishments whether Falcon 1 or Falcon 9 recovery.

Years of explosions, years of many serious people thinking their goal is absurd and unreachable and the efforts plagued with stupid failures, before you get initial success and then a transition to operational success. (For Falcon 1, that would actually be the early Falcon 9 missions).

SpaceX solved the materials problem… they had problems with carbon fiber, switched to stainless. Early stainless tanks were kind of a joke and then they managed to get consistent results and now that’s no longer a major concern. Then Raptor reliability and the pad infrastructure was an issue, and they’ve mostly solved that, pending the next launch.

Stuff is hard. But when SpaceX finally succeeds, they create something that steamrolls the competition, whether Falcon, Dragon, or Starlink.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 09/19/2023 12:19 pm
We get an approximate loss of $1B throughout Starlink's history, JUST in antenna fabrication, or just about 60% of all revenue (excluding 2023's). Of course, ground infrastructure and sales, not to mention launches and satellites cost something, even if low-cost, which we can safely assume to be (quite a bit) more than the antenna losses. So we can confidently say Starlink has so far not only not paid for Starship, but detracted quite a bit from the resources available for it. Which is fine and expectable, just not the way it was advertised.

Starlink (and Starship) resources are heavily dependent on investors finding the business plan attractive.

There are a lot of investors who find a LEO megaconstellation to be an attractive investment (based on the number of megaconstellations currently receiving funding).

There are basically zero investors who find a Mars colonization megarocket to be an attractive business plan (based on the number of Mars colonization megarockets currently receiving funding)

So we can confidently say that by tying Starship to Starlink, SpaceX massively increased the resources available for Starship development, rather than detracting from them.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Nomadd on 09/19/2023 01:35 pm
 Maybe someone with more accounting acumen than me has an idea of how Starlink accounts for launch costs. It seems like there's a lot of number cooking potential there.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 09/19/2023 03:01 pm
Maybe someone with more accounting acumen than me has an idea of how Starlink accounts for launch costs. It seems like there's a lot of number cooking space there.
I'm not an accountant, but I do know that intra-company transfer payments can be almost anything you want them to be. They are typically not exposed to outside scrutiny unless the company is trying to spin off a division. I don't know what happens in a cost-plus contract when such a payment is listed as a cost to the customer.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/19/2023 08:43 pm
Maybe someone with more accounting acumen than me has an idea of how Starlink accounts for launch costs. It seems like there's a lot of number cooking space there.
I'm not an accountant, but I do know that intra-company transfer payments can be almost anything you want them to be. They are typically not exposed to outside scrutiny unless the company is trying to spin off a division. I don't know what happens in a cost-plus contract when such a payment is listed as a cost to the customer.
There would be a need to track costs per each LV flight/Mission to be able to correctly do cost apportionment when other sats rideshare with Starlinks or when a few Starlinks rideshare a regular multisat Mission like a Transporter flight. What would then likely happen is that flight ops costs would then charge off to a Gen1 or Gen2 grouping since these two are separate constellations formations and as such would be logically separately tracked in relationship to the costs incurred. SpaceX actual methods can be similar or very different depending on other needs for cost accounting tracking. The need to track per mission is so that all appropriate costs get applied to a mission to then compare to the revenue received for a customer to then more accurately be able to bid on similar missions in the future.

Note is that revenue from Starlink operations would put money into the costs incurred for year of a constellation as an apportionment of the 2 constellations total sat throughput in operation for the year (MAYBE see later cavoites). This could get sort of messy. Other additional costing for other things like capital equipment, buildings, Gateways installations, Gateway operations, as well as customer service costs. The additional costing would likely show up only at the higher level complete Starlink program level since it would get truly messy to do any apportionment to the individual constellations. Which may also mean that to avoid the mess, subscriber revenue would show up at the Starlink program level and not the constellation level. It would really depend on whether SpaceX determines that any useful information would be gained to be able "color" future or current decisions for the better. Also Note is that all tracking in done to group by some timing label such as month, quarter, year, and total program.

In general accounting is likely to be a lot more granular than this fairly high level organization because of Federal/State and International accounting requirements. Which may shape what is or isn't tracked as independent "buckets".
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/23/2023 06:39 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1705353659372945537

Quote
I wish we were never down, but Starlink will keep improving rapidly.

Our goal is a consistent <20ms latency to major data centers within a region. This is extremely difficult, but we will get there.

Bandwidth will also improve with each generation of satellites and user terminals. Our toughest challenge with bandwidth is peak throughput in areas with high user density. Much easier to achieve high bandwidth in sparsely populated regions.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Rebel44 on 09/23/2023 10:51 pm
Over 2 million customers https://twitter.com/Starlink/status/1705695980325323023?t=V9cGmwRkKxF4G1sVJlyWgg
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/06/2023 11:42 pm
Starlink v3 mentioned in the recent IAC Musk interview? Any details what this is?

I’m thinking probably just a rename (and perhaps tweak) of the full Starship sized v2 satellites (since F9 is launching so many of the v2 minis and will continue to do so for probably a couple years), but is there any other information?
(Attached the old v2 fcc table)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/07/2023 05:04 am
Starlink v3 mentioned in the recent IAC Musk interview? Any details what this is?
<snip>
:)  Somewhat in jest. Maybe the V3 comsat form factor is a pair of the old V2 bus form factor combine, resulting in satcom bus with 6.4 meter length and 5.0 meter width with pair of 30 meter length solar arrays, along with an initial orbital satcom bus mass of about 3750 kg. Estimate to have about 225% of the old Starlink V2 satcom's  bandwidth.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: spacenut on 10/07/2023 12:29 pm
You know that Musk said they were going to land an orbital class rocket.  He was made fun of by many on here who said that it either couldn't be done or would cost too mush.  This started way back in 2014.  He has done it.

He said he was going to launch a LEO constellation to make internet available every where.  Many said it would cost to much or couldn't be done.  He is doing it.

Musk has short timelines to get something done.  We call it on here Elon time.  It always takes a little longer.  Starship is the same.  It will launch, it will get to orbit.  It will be reusable.  Not as fast as he said it would.  As you can see there are hurdles to overcome.  Engineering can be worked out, but may take time.  Regulatory and environmental stuff is also an unexpected hurdle. 

Almost every project Musk has tried, he eventually got done.  Remember I said almost in case someone want's to misquote.  He gave up on Falcon 9 upper stage reuse as it would cut payloads in about half due to what it would take.  Falcon 9 was too small to try for reuse.  He needed revenue from launch contracts and reuse of upper stage would have lost a lot of contracts.  Also, Falcon 9 is manufactured efficiently and is less expensive than any other comparable rocket.  So he makes money from them.  Then reuse helps with very cost effective Starlink launches.  He is also mass producing Starlinks which cuts costs due to bulk manufacturing.  He also recently got a military contract for Starlink type satellites, I think called Starshield. 

Also, a customer can pay for a satellite launch, such as NASA or the military.  This means the Falcon 9 rocket is then paid for.  SpaceX can then use it 10-15 times for fuel and refurbish costs which is cheap, and only pay for each second stage to launch Satellites.  This means Starlinks can probably be launched for $10 million or so per launch which is cheap.  Only one expended engine which costs about $1 million, so the second stage is cheap.  Reuse is what keeps Starlink cheap to deploy. 

Even if Starlink is only break even until all satellites are deployed, that is an accomplishment in itself.  Someone figured on here that for every 1 million customers, it would generate $1 billion in revenue.  Then getting 10's of million customers, with all satellites deployed, SpaceX will make a lot of profit.

Kind of like Amazon.  They didn't make a profit for a long time as they built up their distribution network.  Only private companies can do this.  Once profits are assured, then it can go public.  Most publicly traded companies do not take the risks necessary for long term profits.  SpaceX is looking long term not short term.  This is why Musk hasn't made SpaceX a publicly traded company, not until he gets Starlink up and running and making enough profit.  SpaceX is making a profit on their launch services. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: waveney on 10/10/2023 10:06 am
Article about Starlink and Radio astronomy on Phys.org

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-starlinks-easily-radio-telescopes.html (https://phys.org/news/2023-10-starlinks-easily-radio-telescopes.html)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: mrhuggy on 10/17/2023 08:00 pm
Article about Starlink and Radio astronomy on Phys.org

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-starlinks-easily-radio-telescopes.html (https://phys.org/news/2023-10-starlinks-easily-radio-telescopes.html)

Sounds like a problem that could be easily mitigated by having the Starlinks going silent transiting near radio quiet zones.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 10/17/2023 08:29 pm
FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel talking up direct-to-cell service at Satellite Innovation 2023. Stated that the Space Bureau is developing a new policy for direct-to-cell service, allowing satellite operators to work with spectrum owners for providing service to cell phones.  @ 9:50.

https://news.satnews.com/2023/10/15/watch-here-live-keynote-speech-from-fcc-chairwoman-jessica-rosenworcel-satellite-innovation-2023/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ulm_atms on 10/17/2023 09:03 pm
Article about Starlink and Radio astronomy on Phys.org

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-starlinks-easily-radio-telescopes.html (https://phys.org/news/2023-10-starlinks-easily-radio-telescopes.html)
Reading the article, what on a Starlink sat would(or could) broadcast at 137.5Mhz?  Up/Down is in the Ghz range.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 10/18/2023 01:54 am
Article about Starlink and Radio astronomy on Phys.org

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-starlinks-easily-radio-telescopes.html (https://phys.org/news/2023-10-starlinks-easily-radio-telescopes.html)
Reading the article, what on a Starlink sat would(or could) broadcast at 137.5Mhz?  Up/Down is in the Ghz range.

PDF says the 137.5MHz leak is from Swarm equipment (space IoT constellation company launching Spacebees that SpaceX acquired), the other leak was likely from either avionics or the hall thruster equipment.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Sam Ho on 10/18/2023 02:46 am
Article about Starlink and Radio astronomy on Phys.org

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-starlinks-easily-radio-telescopes.html (https://phys.org/news/2023-10-starlinks-easily-radio-telescopes.html)
Reading the article, what on a Starlink sat would(or could) broadcast at 137.5Mhz?  Up/Down is in the Ghz range.

PDF says the 137.5MHz leak is from Swarm equipment (space IoT constellation company launching Spacebees that SpaceX acquired), the other leak was likely from either avionics or the hall thruster equipment.

Per SpaceX, the Swarm transmitters at 137.5 MHz are used for TT&C on the Starlinks.  It was observed as short flashes every ~100s.  It's in a standard satellite communications downlink frequency band, so it's not a leak.  (The authors also observed even stronger transmission there from the NOAA APT broadcast.)

The transmissions at 159.4 MHz are a leak (that frequency is supposed to be reserved for radio astronomy).  The observations were of a Starlink train at L+3d, during active propulsion.  SpaceX said that it was probably fairly broadband noise from the propulsion or avionics systems.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.15672.pdf

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/26/2023 05:26 pm
https://twitter.com/starlink/status/1717593073583366426

Quote
Three years ago today, Starlink connected our first customer with high-speed internet 🛰️🌎❤️ → https://stories.starlink.com/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: OceanCat on 10/28/2023 05:03 am
Paywalled content but sort of breaking news so I'm posting what's available.

Quote from: https://www.spaceintelreport.com/international-regulators-ask-us-norway-to-immediately-disable-starlink-service-in-iran/
International regulators ask US, Norway to ‘immediately disable’ Starlink service in Iran.

LA PLATA, Maryland — International regulators asked the United States and Norway to take “immediate action to disable Starlink terminals operating within the territory” of Iran, saying the service is a clear violation of international regulations.

The Radio Regulations Board (RRB) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), in rendering its decision on Oct. 27, was clearly unimpressed by the responses provided to it by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Norwegian Communications Authority. The new nations share the role of Starlink "notifying administration" with responsibility for Starlink's...

3 days earlier:

Quote from: https://www.spaceintelreport.com/us-norway-duck-issue-of-illicit-starlink-use-in-iran-tell-itu-its-irans-government-thats-using-the-service/
US, Norway duck issue of illicit Starlink use in Iran, tell ITU it’s Iran’s government that’s using the service

LA PLATA, Maryland — U.S. and Norwegian regulators told the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) that the use of SpaceX Starlink terminals in Iran is unauthorized by SpaceX and that it could be the Iranian government that is using the service.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Norwegian Communications Authority were responding to ITU requests that they account for what Iran says is months-long use of Starlink through terminals smuggled into Iranian territory.

Norway and the United States are both responsible for Starlink’s ITU registration...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 10/30/2023 06:57 pm
Starlink getting a shout out on STMicroelectronic's analyst call.

Quote
To conclude this review, in our RF communications business we are continuously expanding our strategic collaboration on SpaceX’s Starlink, which provides high-speed internet connectivity to a growing customer base in more than 60 countries around the world. They are ramping up their next generation products, which leverage our BiCMOS9 processes as well as innovative and highly differentiated packaging technology.

https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/stmicroelectronics-n-v-nysestm-q3-2023-earnings-call-transcript-1211761/#q-and-a-session

I believe that those "BiCMOS9 processes" can be used in the W-band, which might be the reason for Starlink's recent ITU filing for a W-band network.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: docmordrid on 11/01/2023 02:23 am
Starlink getting a shout out on STMicroelectronic's analyst call.

Quote
To conclude this review, in our RF communications business we are continuously expanding our strategic collaboration on SpaceX’s Starlink, which provides high-speed internet connectivity to a growing customer base in more than 60 countries around the world. They are ramping up their next generation products, which leverage our BiCMOS9 processes as well as innovative and highly differentiated packaging technology.

https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/stmicroelectronics-n-v-nysestm-q3-2023-earnings-call-transcript-1211761/#q-and-a-session

I believe that those "BiCMOS9 processes" can be used in the W-band, which might be the reason for Starlink's recent ITU filing for a W-band network.

Doesn't W band overlap NATO's M band?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/01/2023 02:21 pm
From the 'Starlink markets and marketing' thread

https://twitter.com/starlink/status/1719581885200998485

Quote
Starlink’s high-speed internet is now available in the country of Georgia 🛰️🇬🇪 → starlink.com/map
In other words, Georgia just stood up their alternate C3I (command, control, communication and intelligence) network. :P  In addition to normal commercial and consumer Starlink usage.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/01/2023 02:24 pm
From the 'Starlink markets and marketing' thread

https://twitter.com/starlink/status/1719581885200998485

Quote
Starlink’s high-speed internet is now available in the country of Georgia 🛰️🇬🇪 → starlink.com/map
In other words, Georgia just stood up their alternate C3I (command, control, communication and intelligence) network. :P  In addition to normal commercial and consumer Starlink usage.

Looking at the map, it looks like SpaceX was careful about the areas covered, avoiding those controlled by Russia.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/01/2023 02:42 pm
Starlink getting a shout out on STMicroelectronic's analyst call.

Quote
To conclude this review, in our RF communications business we are continuously expanding our strategic collaboration on SpaceX’s Starlink, which provides high-speed internet connectivity to a growing customer base in more than 60 countries around the world. They are ramping up their next generation products, which leverage our BiCMOS9 processes as well as innovative and highly differentiated packaging technology.

https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/stmicroelectronics-n-v-nysestm-q3-2023-earnings-call-transcript-1211761/#q-and-a-session

I believe that those "BiCMOS9 processes" can be used in the W-band, which might be the reason for Starlink's recent ITU filing for a W-band network.

Doesn't W band overlap NATO's M band?

According to what little I have been able to gather quickly, NATO's M band and the W-band are more or less the same thing.  If you are implying that the W-band is military-only, that doesn't appear to be the case based on the 2016 allocation chart.

https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/january_2016_spectrum_wall_chart_0.pdf
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/02/2023 03:30 pm
Musk announcing that Starlink started to break even from a cash-flow perspective.  It's unclear what criteria he is using, given that in some sense most of SpaceX's activities is in one way or another devoted to Starlink.

Quote
Excited to announce that @SpaceX @Starlink has achieved breakeven cash flow! Excellent work by a great team.

Starlink is also now a majority of all active satellites and will have launched a a majority of all satellites cumulatively from Earth by next year.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1720098480037773658
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/02/2023 03:45 pm
Musk announcing that Starlink started to break even from a cash-flow perspective.  It's unclear what criteria he is using, given that in some sense most of SpaceX's activities is in one way or another devoted to Starlink.

Quote
Excited to announce that @SpaceX @Starlink has achieved breakeven cash flow! Excellent work by a great team.

Starlink is also now a majority of all active satellites and will have launched a a majority of all satellites cumulatively from Earth by next year.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1720098480037773658

This is a big step in the success of Starlink.  Once it's cash flow positive, then it can really self sustain it's ramp.

I still think Starlink is a $500B-$1T business eventually.

[deleted]
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/02/2023 05:47 pm
This is a big step in the success of Starlink.  Once it's cash flow positive, then it can really self sustain it's ramp.

I still think Starlink is a $500B-$1T business eventually.

Up to a few months ago, I very much doubted the idea of Starlink being a $1 trillion+ business.  But I'm starting to see how it likely will be, given its business model, the frequencies it plans to touch and how much recurring revenue it is already bringing in.

One of the wonderful aspects of this business is that it has very stable revenue.  It can survive well and grow quickly even through hard times.  Once it starts throwing off cash, SpaceX as a whole can plan on that recurring cash to fund its Mars R&D.  I think the business also has ample ability to lower its prices to consumers.

Another thing is that this business has monumental barriers to entry, both in dollars and the sophistication necessary to coordinate all of the necessary technologies.  I wonder whether even Amazon/Blue will be able to jump over those hurdles.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Asteroza on 11/02/2023 09:10 pm
I had an odd thought recently;

What is the general reboost strategy employed, for the mostly complete constellation size/shells?

Is that unique to megaconstellations?
Is it unique amongst megaconstellations?
Is it unique to the generation of bus (sharkfin v1.5 versus dual wing v2 mini's)?
Is it unique due to the location of the thruster compared to the nominal orientation?
Is it unique in terms of operational constraints for the equipped ISL beam director field of view?


My first guess is reboost occurs primarily near the poles exclusively, where there is redundant coverage, but doesn't the bus need to reorient for thruster direction and max solar power?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/02/2023 11:18 pm
Moderator and member:
I am tiring of the posts taking potshots at Elon Musk. 😫  And, to a lesser extent, Jeff Bezos and Tory Bruno.

If it's funny, post in the party thread. 😂

Otherwise, maybe don't post it on this forum at all?  Thumper's father's advice is often best. 🐇

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nGt9jAkWie4
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 11/03/2023 01:14 am
I hope they ignore the constant Starlink IPO questions from journalists every time there is some positive news on their financial performance.

Why IPO Starlink for $100B, when you can IPO it for $1 trillion in 5 years time.

And now that they are cash flow positive there is zero pressure on the current shareholders to try and get a cash infusion from an IPO any time soon.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: edzieba on 11/03/2023 11:49 am
Starlink getting a shout out on STMicroelectronic's analyst call.

Quote
To conclude this review, in our RF communications business we are continuously expanding our strategic collaboration on SpaceX’s Starlink, which provides high-speed internet connectivity to a growing customer base in more than 60 countries around the world. They are ramping up their next generation products, which leverage our BiCMOS9 processes as well as innovative and highly differentiated packaging technology.

https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/stmicroelectronics-n-v-nysestm-q3-2023-earnings-call-transcript-1211761/#q-and-a-session

I believe that those "BiCMOS9 processes" can be used in the W-band, which might be the reason for Starlink's recent ITU filing for a W-band network.
BiCMOS9 is a Silicon-Germanium fabrication process. It covers chips fabbed for use across a very wide range of possible operating frequencies up to around 40GHz. The process alone does not tell you anything useful about chip operating frequency or system output frequency.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/03/2023 02:23 pm
I hope they ignore the constant Starlink IPO questions from journalists every time there is some positive news on their financial performance.

Why IPO Starlink for $100B, when you can IPO it for $1 trillion in 5 years time.

And now that they are cash flow positive there is zero pressure on the current shareholders to try and get a cash infusion from an IPO any time soon.

This kind of talk doesn't bother me.  SpaceX/Starlink would be the biggest IPO of a venture-backed company in history.  It would define the market for a decade.  So naturally, SpaceX/Starlink is going to feature in a lot of dinner party discussions.  It might be useful for the company to low-key encourage it.

But I don't think that Musk wants the hassle, scrutiny, or yo-yo-ing of being a public company.  So long as the VCs don't need a liquidity event beyond the capacity of the private market, there's no pressure for SpaceX/Starlink to go public.  As far as I can tell, SpaceX doesn't have much debt.  Creditors can sometimes pressure a company to go public.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: scaesare on 11/03/2023 02:38 pm
I hope they ignore the constant Starlink IPO questions from journalists every time there is some positive news on their financial performance.

Why IPO Starlink for $100B, when you can IPO it for $1 trillion in 5 years time.

And now that they are cash flow positive there is zero pressure on the current shareholders to try and get a cash infusion from an IPO any time soon.

This kind of talk doesn't bother me.  SpaceX/Starlink would be the biggest IPO of a venture-backed company in history.  It would define the market for a decade.  So naturally, SpaceX/Starlink is going to feature in a lot of dinner party discussions.  It might be useful for the company to encourage it.

But I don't think that Musk wants the hassle, scrutiny, or yo-yo-ing of being a public company.  So long as the VCs don't need a liquidity event beyond the capacity of the private market, there's no pressure for SpaceX/Starlink to go public.  As far as I can tell, SpaceX doesn't have much debt.  Creditors can sometimes pressure a company to go public.

I think Musk's attempt to take Tesla private, as well as his comments on the general annoyance of having to deal with the public ownership, lends credence to this.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 11/03/2023 03:06 pm
I believe that those "BiCMOS9 processes" can be used in the W-band, which might be the reason for Starlink's recent ITU filing for a W-band network.
BiCMOS9 is a Silicon-Germanium fabrication process. It covers chips fabbed for use across a very wide range of possible operating frequencies up to around 40GHz. The process alone does not tell you anything useful about chip operating frequency or system output frequency.
From ST's webpage:
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/03/2023 03:11 pm
Moderator and member:
I am tiring of the posts taking potshots at Elon Musk. 😫  And, to a lesser extent, Jeff Bezos and Tory Bruno.

If it's funny, post in the party thread. 😂

Otherwise, maybe don't post it on this forum at all?  Thumper's father's advice is often best. 🐇

Sorry, I could have been less colorful in my comment.  But Elon's decline is relevant. 

He owns a controlling interest in SpaceX, a DOD service provider, his 'stability' is very important to SpaceX's future.

I want Starship, Starlink, HLS, Mars all to succeed and it's just getting to the point that Starlink could self fund so much of this, it would be shame if it was squandered by one person falling apart.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/03/2023 04:59 pm
But Elon's decline is relevant.

I would prefer to keep the politics more or less out of the discussion.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: thespacecow on 11/05/2023 04:43 pm
Sorry, I could have been less colorful in my comment.  But Elon's decline is relevant. 

He owns a controlling interest in SpaceX, a DOD service provider, his 'stability' is very important to SpaceX's future.

I want Starship, Starlink, HLS, Mars all to succeed and it's just getting to the point that Starlink could self fund so much of this, it would be shame if it was squandered by one person falling apart.

There's no sign of his decline, the fact that he just started another company to join the AI race shows he's energetic as ever.

And one can make a reasonable argument that he's more stable today than 2018 when he was tweeting "funding secured", smoking joint on podcast and calling the other guy names.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/06/2023 09:51 pm
https://twitter.com/bloombergtv/status/1721656003677093895

Quote
BREAKING: SpaceX is on track to book revenues of about $9 billion this year across its rocket launch and Starlink businesses, according to people familiar with the matter, with sales projected to rise to around $15 billion in 2024

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-06/spacex-eyes-15-billion-in-sales-next-year-on-starlink-strength

Quote
SpaceX Eyes $15 Billion in Sales Next Year on Starlink Strength

Revenue of $9 billion expected from launches, Starlink in 2023
Internal data shows growth of Starlink satellite business


By Edward Ludlow and Gillian Tan
6 November 2023 at 21:39 GMT

SpaceX is on track to book revenues of about $9 billion this year across its rocket launch and Starlink businesses, according to people familiar with the matter, with sales projected to rise to around $15 billion in 2024.

Sales for Starlink, in particular, are expected to outpace and exceed the launch business next year
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/22/2023 03:01 pm
https://twitter.com/chenryspace/status/1727355060483719595

Quote
Just noticed that @Starlink's logo, at least on X, is the Hohmann Transfer Orbit (Earth to Mars and back). Another reminder that Starlink was always about funding a path to the Red Planet.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/12/2023 09:07 pm
Ookla is reporting that Starlink is more than meeting increased demand in the United States, with November median speeds at all-time highs of 79.04 Mbps down.  This is a significant improvement from a trough in July of 62.23 Mbps down.

NB:  The article focuses on Q3, but includes data from the first two months of Q4.  So while the article is a bit downbeat, the recent data is positive.

https://www.ookla.com/articles/us-satellite-performance-q3-2023
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/12/2023 09:52 pm
Oral arguments yesterday in International Dark-Sky Association v. FCC challenging the FCC's Starlink Gen2 license.  The case is in the DC Circuit.

Audio of the argument (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings2023.nsf/63F91E9D05C93DA085258A8200450B05/$file/22-1337.mp3) (file perhaps too big to attach)

BloombergLaw's analysis (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/d-c-circuit-skeptical-of-challenge-to-spacex-satellite-licenses): D.C. Circuit Skeptical of Suit Over SpaceX Satellite License (partially behind a paywall)

CourtListener's docket of the case (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66696217/international-dark-sky-association-inc-v-fcc/)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/12/2023 10:04 pm
Oral arguments yesterday in International Dark-Sky Association v. FCC challenging the FCC's Starlink Gen2 license.  The case is in the DC Circuit.
<snip>

What is the positions of the other LEO comsat constellations in regard to this legal case?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/12/2023 10:29 pm
Oral arguments yesterday in International Dark-Sky Association v. FCC challenging the FCC's Starlink Gen2 license.  The case is in the DC Circuit.
<snip>

What is the positions of the other LEO comsat constellations in regard to this legal case?

Only the IDSA, Dish, the FCC, SpaceX, and TechFreedom filed briefs.  I don't know what kind of organization TechFreedom is, but they filed a brief arguing that NEPA does not apply to outer space.

https://techfreedom.org/nepa-doesnt-apply-in-outer-space-argues-techfreedom-amicus-brief/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ZachS09 on 12/13/2023 02:50 pm
I remember once saying that external customers come first before internal missions.

Starlink is not high priority.
External customer launches help pay the bills today while return on Starlink launch will take years to recover.

Can you further explain your statement? I don’t get the financial aspect of this.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: mn on 12/13/2023 02:56 pm
I remember once saying that external customers come first before internal missions.

Starlink is not high priority.
External customer launches help pay the bills today while return on Starlink launch will take years to recover.

Can you further explain your statement? I don’t get the financial aspect of this.

When you launch for an external customer you get paid immediately, when you launch Starlink, you are making a long term investment which will generate money at some point in the future. (How Starlink pays SpaceX is an internal accounting game)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 12/13/2023 03:18 pm
I remember once saying that external customers come first before internal missions.

Starlink is not high priority.
External customer launches help pay the bills today while return on Starlink launch will take years to recover.

Can you further explain your statement? I don’t get the financial aspect of this.

When you launch for an external customer you get paid immediately, when you launch Starlink, you are making a long term investment which will generate money at some point in the future. (How Starlink pays SpaceX is an internal accounting game)
It's a bit more nuanced than this. Since SpaceX has an open-ended pipeline of Starlink launches, deferring a Starlink launch will cost only few days at most and has no impact on revenue either now or in the future. It does not affect the schedule of subsequent launches. This remains true up until they fill literally all launch slots in the year, and they are not yet at that point. This is SpaceX' fundamental business advantage: a high-demand low-priority customer.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 12/13/2023 03:22 pm
I remember once saying that external customers come first before internal missions.

Starlink is not high priority.
External customer launches help pay the bills today while return on Starlink launch will take years to recover.

Can you further explain your statement? I don’t get the financial aspect of this.

When you launch for an external customer you get paid immediately, when you launch Starlink, you are making a long term investment which will generate money at some point in the future. (How Starlink pays SpaceX is an internal accounting game)

To be clear, you get paid a portion immediately on signing of a launch contract.  So the cash flow difference between a Starlink launch and Kuiper launch can be quite large.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 12/13/2023 03:50 pm
I remember once saying that external customers come first before internal missions.

Starlink is not high priority.
External customer launches help pay the bills today while return on Starlink launch will take years to recover.
Can you further explain your statement? I don’t get the financial aspect of this.

When you launch for an external customer you get paid immediately, when you launch Starlink, you are making a long term investment which will generate money at some point in the future. (How Starlink pays SpaceX is an internal accounting game)

To be clear, you get paid a portion immediately on signing of a launch contract.  So the cash flow difference between a Starlink launch and Kuiper launch can be quite large.
I speculate cash flow is not a problem for SpaceX.

Almost all companies with revenue more than about $2 Million/yr use accrual accounting, not cash accounting. You do not recognize the revenue until you perform the service.  An up-front payment is booked as a liability because you might need to refund it.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/19/2023 05:37 pm
https://twitter.com/depsecgraves/status/1737135473447829680

Quote
Yesterday, I met with @SpaceX President @Gwynne_Shotwell to discuss satellite broadband connectivity and space mission authorization.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/22/2023 06:08 am
https://twitter.com/starlink/status/1738025258089935219

Quote
Starlink is connecting more than 2.3M people in over 70 countries, and in many more markets, all around the world 🛰️🌎❤️

Here are just a few of their stories → https://stories.starlink.com/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gin455res on 12/22/2023 08:56 am
What could spaceX and starlink do to encourage (over decadal timescales probably) off-grid semi-rural living across the world to expand its potential market for low-density population broadband?


I'm thinking along the lines of a) politically - pushing back against massive farm land acquisitions by the likes of Gates, the proposed compulsory purchase of smaller farms in Holland, and favouring decentralisation, affordable small holdings and micro-farming; b) logistically - encouraging fractal-semi-colonisation of earth's wildernesses as a romantic analogy to colonising Mars, atmospheric water harvesting, electro-chemical ammonia production (possibly a future earth based rocket fuel to pivot to when the emissions from Starship start to explode and Musk hating environmentalists start complaining about the industry's carbon footprint), investing in (FSD?) hybrid electric STOL and hybrid airships that can decouple expansion from the edges of road and rail networks, allowing the building of cheap small runways/airports to seed new centres of settlement; c) philosophically/economically Championing de-urbanisation/fractal-urbanisation in a world of increasing robot factories (factories being the main driver of city expansion during the industrial revolution) and remote working;...


The more de-urbanisation and techno-ruralism the larger the market for starlink?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: chuck99z28 on 12/22/2023 07:47 pm
Big farming, while an issue doesn't have anything to do with off-grid semi-rural living.  Starlink fills that gap now.  You can be micro-farming now even if you're not rural.  People don't all garden and microfarm because its dang hard work for relatively little income and pretty inconsistent due to winter weather.

Starlink does open up rural living.  You can buy a place in the middle of nowhere and work from home with Starlink.  When you live rural you have to remember there are no clubs and entertainment.  And not a lot of jobs, definitely not at the income level of city jobs.  Unless you bring your job with you and work from home.

But its up now.  You can buy a terminal today.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/24/2023 07:49 am
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/s/O4N4fyVtDJ

Quote
A rare top view of the Starlink V2 mini stack, photo found on https://direct.starlink.com/
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/27/2023 03:45 am
https://spacenews.com/musk-not-eager-to-take-starlink-public/

Quote
Musk not eager to take Starlink public
Jeff Foust
December 26, 2023

SANTA FE, N.M. — SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk again appeared to rule out any near-term plans for spinning out his company’s Starlink broadband satellite business and taking it public.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: seb21051 on 01/03/2024 05:32 pm
How well is Spacex doing at maintaining and building their satellite presence in LEO in order to ensure they stay ahead of of the FCC licensing requirements?

I thought I saw somewhere their current license required them to have 7,500 in space by 2026; is this correct?

So the eventual projection to have 40,000 is going to require them to meet interim requirements of what quantities by when?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 01/03/2024 07:56 pm
Using Jonathan's updated Starlink stats...
https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html

It is more or less like this.

Gen 1 was approved March 2018, 4,015 sats launched so far
6-year deadline of March 2024, one-half requirement of 2,213 sats launched
9-year deadline of March 2027, full requirement of 4,425 sats launched

Gen 2 was approved December 2022, 1,656 sats launched so far
6-year deadline of December 2028, one-half requirement of 3,750 sats launched
9-year deadline of December 2031, full requirement of 7,500 sats launched

If the full Gen 2 is eventually approved (30k sats), the most stringent deadline could be 15,000 sats by December 2028, or 2,669 per year, if authorized today.  However, given that SpaceX has not yet renewed its 30,000-sat application, it seems likely that the FCC would give a bit more time when it does authorize the full constellation.

Then you have the V-Band 6-year requirements on Gen 2, which are more stringent.  That is because the FCC is keeping the deadlines of its original November 2018 V-band authorization, even though it is now being launched on Gen 2.  So that would be 3,500 V-band sats required by November 2024.  It is unclear how many V-band sats have been launched to date.  Maybe SpaceX will request a short time extension of this requirement.  SpaceX may wait until Telesat receives word from the FCC on Telesat's time extension request before filing its own.

In any event, SpaceX is operating with such haste that the FCC deadlines are less of a consideration, except maybe on the V-band sats.  It wants all sats launched as quickly as possible.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/13/2024 05:29 am
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1745958922752536792

Quote
Elon Musk held an all hands meeting for SpaceX employees this month, with updates on the company's Falcon 9, Starlink, and Starship programs.

Some highlights in the thread below:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1745958927110480288

Quote
SpaceX is now shipping the 4th generation Starlink terminal.

Plans to introduce "Starlink Mini" later this year, which "can fit in a backpack."

Here's where Starlink units are in use around the world:
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/13/2024 09:02 am
Starlink slides from Elon’s talk. He said Starlink v2 mini has doubled capacity from 86 terabits per second to 165.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: jpo234 on 01/14/2024 07:52 pm
Regarding the map of active Starlink terminals:

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=55795.0;attach=2248808;image)

I distinctly remember a photo that showed the distribution of Starlink terminals for schools in Mongolia, but this map doesn't show anything in Central Asia...

Found it here: https://livetv.mn/p/292983
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: catdlr on 01/16/2024 02:57 am
https://twitter.com/Starlink/status/1746988143138496623

Quote
Starlink is ideal for rural locations. Later this year,
@JohnDeere
 will begin equipping new and existing machines across the United States and Brazil with Starlink to help connect farmers with high-speed internet so they can fully leverage precision agriculture technologies
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/16/2024 06:46 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1747117040018591907

Quote
Significant improvements have been made to @Starlink latency (ping) & many more to come.

Target is <20ms.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: gongora on 01/25/2024 03:33 am
Some experimental permit filings to try out Starlink terminals on Falcon 9 Stage 2 starting in February.
0069-EX-ST-2024 (east coast)
0070-EX-ST-2024 (west coast)
Quote
FALCON 9 FLIGHT
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is a reusable, two-stage rocket designed and manufactured by SpaceX for the
reliable and safe transport of crew and cargo into Earth Orbit and beyond. SpaceX intends to mount
a Starlink satellite terminal within the payload section of the Falcon 9 second stage for an upcoming flight
and use this terminal to communicate with SpaceX’s satellite constellation.

OBJECTIVES
SpaceX intends to demonstrate communications at orbital altitudes and velocities between its
satellites and the Starlink satellite terminal mounted on the Falcon 9 second stage, after fairing
deployment and through stage entry. SpaceX’s satellite constellation can provide unprecedented
volumes of telemetry and enable communications during spaceflight, including during atmospheric entry
when ionized plasma around the spacecraft inhibits conventional telemetry frequencies. These tests
will demonstrate Starlink’s ability to improve the efficiency and safety of future orbital spaceflight
missions.

FLIGHT PROFILE
The Falcon 9 flight will originate from Cape Canaveral, FL, and continue to deploy its payload at
which time the Starlink terminal aboard Falcon will be powered on. The second stage will reach a
peak altitude at approximately 296 km before descending back towards Earth.

STARLINK TERMINALS
A Starlink terminal will be fitted within the payload section of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle in a manner
to allow a clear view of the SpaceX satellite constellation through the Falcon 9 flight profile after
fairing deployment. The terminals will use the same antenna and communications electronics as
SpaceX’s previously authorized consumer terminals but with a revised enclosure and mounting that
is suitable for the mission profile.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: EspenU on 01/27/2024 10:51 pm
Do we know how many laser links each v2 mini satellite has? I might be blind, but I haven't found a clear number.
I'm also wondering if we know at what distances the lasers normally operate at?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/28/2024 12:49 am
Do we know how many laser links each v2 mini satellite has? I might be blind, but I haven't found a clear number.
I'm also wondering if we know at what distances the lasers normally operate at?
THEORY: You need nodes with a minimum of three links to form a mesh network. More is better. In a satellite constellation, the easiest links are the links between satellites in the same orbit, one ahead and one behind. These links do not vary much at all, because theses satellites are (almost) fixed relative to each other.  The other link(s) must point at satellites in relative motion. There are several fairly elegant topologies that work nicely when all satellites have three links. Since satellites beyond the first two move, the network topology must constantly change, breaking and making that third link. These changes are all completely predictable, so the forwarding table updates can be computed in advance and no packets need to be lost when a link breaks.

While 3 links suffice, additional links are better, especially when the constellation has multiple shells.

Distances: for the "same orbit" links, divide 40,000(+) km by the number of satellites in the orbit. 40 satellites per orbit, link is a bit more than 1000 km.  For the remaining links, You would need to know the selected dynamic topology scheme.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: snotis on 01/30/2024 10:21 pm
Starlink's Laser System Is Beaming 42 Million GB of Data Per Day

https://www.pcmag.com/news/starlinks-laser-system-is-beaming-42-million-gb-of-data-per-day (https://www.pcmag.com/news/starlinks-laser-system-is-beaming-42-million-gb-of-data-per-day)

Some very interesting details on Starlink's laser links between satellites.

Quote
For the future, SpaceX plans on expanding its laser system so that it can be ported and installed on third-party satellites. The company has also explored beaming the satellite lasers directly to terminals on the Earth’s surface to deliver data. But Brashears said a “deeper study” is necessary to enable the technology.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/31/2024 12:26 am
Starlink's Laser System Is Beaming 42 Million GB of Data Per Day

https://www.pcmag.com/news/starlinks-laser-system-is-beaming-42-million-gb-of-data-per-day (https://www.pcmag.com/news/starlinks-laser-system-is-beaming-42-million-gb-of-data-per-day)

Some very interesting details on Starlink's laser links between satellites.

Quote
For the future, SpaceX plans on expanding its laser system so that it can be ported and installed on third-party satellites. The company has also explored beaming the satellite lasers directly to terminals on the Earth’s surface to deliver data. But Brashears said a “deeper study” is necessary to enable the technology.
Note the article says that some of the links stay connected for "weeks". Those will be the links between satellites in the same orbit, next-ahead and next-behind, as I mentioned earlier. The length of the "longest" links and the depth of the chord down into the atmosphere are also interesting. It's better to avoid a deep chord like that, as there are a few phenomena in the high stratosphere that can attenuate a laser, but they are rare so you use those links if you have no better option.

The article mentions 9000 links. I don't know how many ISL-capable satellites they have. If they have 3000 satellites, that's 3 links per satellite, which is enough to operate and enough to give some flexibility, but a fourth link would make life simpler for the dynamic network manager.

From a physical standpoint, the lasers for next-ahead and next-behind are in theory easy: just put one on the front and one on the back, with not much gimballing.  The other laser(s) are more interesting. Ideally, they would be able to point anywhere, but that would be very difficult.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/31/2024 04:12 am
I found this interesting:

“Another really fun fact is that we held a link all the way down to 122 kilometers while we were de-orbiting a satellite,” he said. “And we were able to downstream the video.” 

I assumed they had some cameras on each satellite but I don’t think we’ve seen any onboard footage. 

That would be fun to see.  Also what ground resolution they could possible achieve.  A full earth real time surveillance could be a huge produce and revenue stream.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/31/2024 12:18 pm
Starlink laser link to stratospheric drones would be an interesting capability.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/31/2024 01:33 pm
Starlink laser link to stratospheric drones would be an interesting capability.
Even more interesting would be a laser link to a tethered balloon (actually a kytoon chain). Probably not feasible, but if feasible it avoids the current RF downlink constraints.
  https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150295646A1/en
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/01/2024 10:43 pm
Starlink's Laser System Is Beaming 42 Million GB of Data Per Day

https://www.pcmag.com/news/starlinks-laser-system-is-beaming-42-million-gb-of-data-per-day (https://www.pcmag.com/news/starlinks-laser-system-is-beaming-42-million-gb-of-data-per-day)

Some very interesting details on Starlink's laser links between satellites.

Quote
For the future, SpaceX plans on expanding its laser system so that it can be ported and installed on third-party satellites. The company has also explored beaming the satellite lasers directly to terminals on the Earth’s surface to deliver data. But Brashears said a “deeper study” is necessary to enable the technology.

Would be interested in the differences between the E-band and laser comms with the Earth's surface.  I understand that the laser links are unregulated and parts are plentiful, so laser has other advantages.  But the throughput might not differ all that much and E-band has other advantages like being suitable to using fixed phase array antennas.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/02/2024 12:23 am
Laser can do terabits per second per channel. Or more. The direct to ground or direct to tethered balloon is more advantageous as the tech improves, and it has a long way it can improve.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/02/2024 02:45 pm
How long before some government decides laser coms need regulated/allocated/taxed, etc?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/02/2024 03:11 pm
How long before some government decides laser coms need regulated/allocated/taxed, etc?
RF must be regulated because the spectrum is limited and RF cannot be focused sufficiently to avoid interference. the justification for this is technical: the spectrum is a shared commons and users who do not play by the rules harm the other users.

FSO laser spectrum is effectively unlimited and lasers are so directional that they do not interfere with other users.

The networks that incorporate laser links (FSO and fiber) are regulated and taxed. The justifications for this are economic and social, not technical.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/02/2024 03:25 pm
Laser can do terabits per second per channel. Or more.

What are the next lowest-hanging fruits on getting more than ~200 Gbps per channel, as Starlink is doing now with its latest laser terminal?  Needs to have plentiful and cheap parts available or near-available.  Any keywords that I can search?

I notice that in the first half of 2023, NASA's TBIRD achieved 200 Gbps downlink using commercial-off-the-shelf parts.  I assume that Starlink is using the same or similar parts for its inter-satellite links.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/laser-communications

TBIRD was small, low mass, and low wattage. So this could be readily integrated into Starlink's satellites.  However, I don't know if this was a transmit-only test.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/02/2024 03:58 pm
Laser can do terabits per second per channel. Or more.

What are the next lowest-hanging fruits on getting more than ~200 Gbps per channel, as Starlink is doing now with its latest laser terminal?  Needs to have plentiful and cheap parts available or near-available.  Any keywords that I can search?

I notice that in the first half of 2023, NASA's TBIRD achieved 200 Gbps downlink using commercial-off-the-shelf parts.  I assume that Starlink is using the same or similar parts for its inter-satellite links.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/laser-communications
I don't know. Depends on what they mean by "channel". When using fiber, you only have a relatively narrow range in the optical C band around 1510 nm, and it can carry multiple lambdas, with each lambda carrying a singel bitstream. 160 lambas at 10 Gbps back in my day, now up to at least 100 Gpbs but at a wider spacing. The optical C-band is in the "sweet spot" of fiber transmissivity.

But an optical inter-satellite link uses Free-Space Optics (FSO), not fiber. FSO has no theoretical "sweet spot", so there are effectively an unlimited number of available lambdas in the optical spectrum. No particular reason to try to cram in more bits per lambda. Instead, just light up another lambda. You can in theory generate an entire octave of lambdas using a femtosecond comb laser. You use the same optics for all of them at the same time.

Earlier FSO gear tended to use off-the-shelf C-band lasers and receivers because they were readily available. I do not know what is currently used in practice.  A femtosecond comb laser is complicated, but replaces hundreds or thousands of discrete lasers
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: JayWee on 02/02/2024 06:13 pm
Laser can do terabits per second per channel. Or more.

What are the next lowest-hanging fruits on getting more than ~200 Gbps per channel, as Starlink is doing now with its latest laser terminal?  Needs to have plentiful and cheap parts available or near-available.  Any keywords that I can search?

I notice that in the first half of 2023, NASA's TBIRD achieved 200 Gbps downlink using commercial-off-the-shelf parts.  I assume that Starlink is using the same or similar parts for its inter-satellite links.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/laser-communications

TBIRD was small, low mass, and low wattage. So this could be readily integrated into Starlink's satellites.  However, I don't know if this was a transmit-only test.
The current ethernet transceivers and FPGAs can do 400Gbps. But I do wonder what kind of FPGAs is SpaceX using.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/02/2024 07:11 pm
Laser can do terabits per second per channel. Or more.

What are the next lowest-hanging fruits on getting more than ~200 Gbps per channel, as Starlink is doing now with its latest laser terminal?  Needs to have plentiful and cheap parts available or near-available.  Any keywords that I can search?

I notice that in the first half of 2023, NASA's TBIRD achieved 200 Gbps downlink using commercial-off-the-shelf parts.  I assume that Starlink is using the same or similar parts for its inter-satellite links.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/laser-communications

TBIRD was small, low mass, and low wattage. So this could be readily integrated into Starlink's satellites.  However, I don't know if this was a transmit-only test.
The current ethernet transceivers and FPGAs can do 400Gbps. But I do wonder what kind of FPGAs is SpaceX using.
For ISL, you can use multiple lambdas in parallel in any of several ways to get around any constraint in the serial bit rate. For example,  you can use 100 Gbps parts to create four channels instead of 400 Gbps parts to create one channel. This also gives you fallback redundancy.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/02/2024 11:04 pm
Laser can do terabits per second per channel. Or more.

What are the next lowest-hanging fruits on getting more than ~200 Gbps per channel, as Starlink is doing now with its latest laser terminal?  Needs to have plentiful and cheap parts available or near-available.  Any keywords that I can search?

I notice that in the first half of 2023, NASA's TBIRD achieved 200 Gbps downlink using commercial-off-the-shelf parts.  I assume that Starlink is using the same or similar parts for its inter-satellite links.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/laser-communications

TBIRD was small, low mass, and low wattage. So this could be readily integrated into Starlink's satellites.  However, I don't know if this was a transmit-only test.
The current ethernet transceivers and FPGAs can do 400Gbps. But I do wonder what kind of FPGAs is SpaceX using.
For ISL, you can use multiple lambdas in parallel in any of several ways to get around any constraint in the serial bit rate. For example,  you can use 100 Gbps parts to create four channels instead of 400 Gbps parts to create one channel. This also gives you fallback redundancy.
Plus your parts are likely to be 1/10th the price per part. Such that 4 100Gbps parts vs 1 400Gbps part is .4 the price for the same actual throughput on the same aggregate link. Also using some of the newer line width chips Fab with simpler FPGA design aimed at running at 100Gbps allows multiple individual FPGAs on a chip running slower to then allow a significantly lower power usage than that single FPGA at a much higher "clock"/gate speed. Once these 400Gbps become second place with something newer with 2X or more capability then the same can be created similarly to produce a lower power close equivalent that would then possibly give you a 4X throughput increase again in a few years (as in about 2 or 3).

If the current ISLs are at 200Gbps then expect that in less than 2 years a next gen ISL that can operate with either a 200Gps or at a higher rate like 400Gbps or even a possible 800Gps when it connects with a like capable ISL. Eventually the whole network will slowly and continuously get faster a faster every couple of years as the older sats go out of service. I expect that in 3 more years you may not see any of the V1.5s even in service anymore or possibly even in orbit anymore either.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/03/2024 12:57 pm
<snip>
If the current ISLs are at 200Gbps then expect that in less than 2 years a next gen ISL that can operate with either a 200Gps or at a higher rate like 400Gbps or even a possible 800Gps when it connects with a like capable ISL. Eventually the whole network will slowly and continuously get faster a faster every couple of years as the older sats go out of service. I expect that in 3 more years you may not see any of the V1.5s even in service anymore or possibly even in orbit anymore either.
The competitors must be terrified of the later iteration of Starlink comsats with much higher bandwidth when SpaceX replenishes the deployed orbital shells. The competitors will have to start raising capitol to keep up with Starlink's growth or exit the market, since they will likely not have enough marketshare to self finance further capital expenditures.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: LMT on 02/03/2024 04:13 pm
Quote
NOAA, SpaceX Enter Cooperative Agreement for Automated Collision Avoidance R&D (https://www.space.commerce.gov/noaa-spacex-enter-cooperative-agreement-for-automated-collision-avoidance-rd/)

OSC - SSA/STC
1/31/24

NOAA’s Office of Space Commerce (OSC) and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) have entered into a no-exchange-of-funds Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) for research and development activities related to automated collision avoidance and satellite conjunction assessment screenings.

Under the terms of this CRADA, OSC will perform an astrodynamics evaluation of SpaceX software.

“SpaceX is advancing the state of the art in space operations, using software in support of automated collision avoidance to safely manage thousands of satellites at a time,” said Richard DalBello, Director of the Office of Space Commerce. “We are excited to be partnering with them to evaluate their software as a tool for enhancing space safety and sustainability.”

Related: 

SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers in just 6 months — and it will only get worse (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59595.msg2559020#msg2559020)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/03/2024 04:17 pm
Attached is a very helpful 2022 MIT AeroAstro doctoral thesis from Alexa Aguilar, who is now a space laser engineer at SpaceX, regarding multiuser lasercom terminals.  She gave a useful overview of the state of the art circa 2022.  She went through the history of the technology for inter-satellite links, Earth-ground links, and deep space links, with size, mass, and power budgets.

One thing that she raised was that WDMA (using multiple wavelengths/colors or "lambdas" to transmit/receive), the optical properties for each wavelength are slightly different.  So it's not as easy as slapping the wavelengths together in a single optical hardware path.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/03/2024 05:41 pm
Attached is a very helpful 2022 MIT AeroAstro doctoral thesis from Alexa Aguilar, who is now a space laser engineer at SpaceX, regarding multiuser lasercom terminals.  She gave useful overview of the state of the art circa 2022.  She went through the history of the technology for inter-satellite links, Earth-ground links, and deep space links, with size, mass, and power budgets.

One thing that she raised was that WDMA (using multiple wavelengths/colors or "lambdas" to transmit/receive), the optical properties for each wavelength are slightly different.  So it's not as easy as slapping the wavelengths together in a single optical hardware path.
Thanks for this ref. All of my prior comments were about strictly point-to-point ISL. This paper provides an excellent historical overview and review of current state of the art that encompasses point-to-point ISL, but It also covers other stuff. The paper's primary focus (sorry) is on the author's actual thesis research, which is point-to-multipoint multi-user, including comms with multiple users on the ground. This is an area I have not investigated because it is very hard by comparison. This does mean that you must carefully consider which individual parts of the review portions of the paper are relevant to each application. I don't think I can comment much more until I spend several more hours on this 100-page paper.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/03/2024 07:04 pm
Just to be clear, I was not implying that you were suggesting to "slap the wavelengths together."  Indeed, putting together some may be possible using the same optical path or parts of the same optical path (would have to evaluate closely).
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/03/2024 07:28 pm
Just to be clear, I was not implying that you were suggesting to "slap the wavelengths together."  Indeed, putting together some may be possible using the same optical path or parts of the same optical path (would have to evaluate closely).
Yep. Real optics have wavelength dependencies. In the near term, there will be little or no need to try to use wide range of wavelenghs, and these effects should be negligible across a "reasonable" range like the optical C band. ITU standardized the use of 72 channels of 100 Gbps each between 1520 and 1577 nm. The industry already has commercial systems that can put these wavelengths together on a single fiber.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: catdlr on 02/10/2024 01:12 am
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1756137898876060052

Quote
Check out how the internet from space enables projects from around the world →


https://stories.starlink.com/stories/internet-from-space-for-barbados
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/10/2024 09:27 am
Anyone got a ratio number for number of Starlink satcom  launched and everything else launched globally?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: catdlr on 02/10/2024 08:01 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1756422655715291632

Quote
With each launch of our second generation @Starlink satellites, we add ~2.2 Tbps of capacity to the constellation, allowing us to improve coverage and connect more people all around the world with high-speed internet from space
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 02/13/2024 08:20 am
Quote
SpaceX has to-date initiated controlled deorbits on 406 satellites out of the nearly 6000 Starlink satellites launched. Of those, 17 are currently non-maneuverable, passively decaying, but well-tracked to help mitigate collision risk with other active satellites.

The other 95% of satellites the Starlink team initiated controlled descent for have already de-orbited.

In the coming weeks and months, SpaceX will perform controlled descents of approximately 100 additional early-version v1 Starlink satellites. These satellites are currently maneuverable and serving users effectively, but the Starlink team identified a common issue in this small population of satellites that could increase the probability of failure in the future. The satellites will follow a safe, circular, and controlled lowering operation that should take approximately six months for most of the vehicles. Controlled, propulsive deorbit is much shorter and safer than a comparable ballistic deorbit from an equivalent altitude

NB: According to JCM's site: https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html (https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html) , there have been 5828 Starlink satellites launched, of which 5438 remain in orbit (-390), and 36 are screened as "failed/decaying", and other 43 as "disposal underway", for a total of 469 "out of order" Starlinks. This can imply some of the "100 vehicles" due for controlled deorbit are actually already undergoing the maneuvers (about half), or they may be mistagged in the database (some maybe, but unlikely for most). By the end of the upcoming 6-month period, and barring any strong infant mortality on recent or future launches, there will be around 530 deorbited Starlinks - or a stable 8-10% of the constellation, which has been the case since the early days of deployment, and was a topic of hot, contested debate among some forum members here back when statistics were still scarce.

https://api.starlink.com/public-files/Commitment%20to%20Space%20Sustainability.pdf (https://api.starlink.com/public-files/Commitment%20to%20Space%20Sustainability.pdf)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Tomness on 02/13/2024 02:03 pm
Cross Post for Discussion
Oleg repairs Starlink terminals for the UA army:

https://twitter.com/olegkutkov/status/1755703062734176694

Damn maybe I can off load my Gen1 dish so I can get a Gen 3 dish and have some extra $ to get rid of some debt. Lol
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/13/2024 03:53 pm
We have been asked not to discuss Starlink at war on this site.  I'm interested in such a discussion, but would like to honor Chris's wishes.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: tntnt on 02/15/2024 11:23 am
Anyone got a ratio number for number of Starlink satcom  launched and everything else launched globally?
This sounds like a job for Jonathon McDowell...

Starlink is 32.5% of all payloads to orbit (starlink 5794 / other 12026)

and 44.5% of all payloads on orbit (starlink 5438 / other 6774)

The non starlink totals are murky, depending on how you wrangle the data. The range I could see was about ~1%.  For example, the Voyagers are included in my "to orbit" query, but not "on orbit". The Apollo LM's are included in the "on orbit" total.

- data from GCAT (satcat TSV) (J. McDowell, https://planet4589.org/space/gcat)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Teppich on 02/19/2024 05:01 pm
Starlink laser link to stratospheric drones would be an interesting capability.

Assuming this capability is pursued further, that would seem like the most obvious application to me

Both RQ-180 and B-21 fly at extremely high altitudes, so less atmospheric effects and no cloud cover overhead.
At the same time, they both have demand for very high bandwidth data links that are also extremely stealthy and hard to jam given their mission set.

Optical links to satellites would seem to fit the bill perfectly, whether that's provided by Starlink or something like PWSA.

On the civilian side of things, maybe there's a market here for aircraft communications as well? Just for the higher throughput vs RF
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 02/19/2024 05:14 pm
...By the end of the upcoming 6-month period, and barring any strong infant mortality on recent or future launches, there will be around 530 deorbited Starlinks - or a stable 8-10% of the constellation, which has been the case since the early days of deployment, and was a topic of hot, contested debate among some forum members here back when statistics were still scarce.
I doubt there was much debate at all about the number of starlinks that would be deorbited.

There was debate about the number that would fail, and particularly the number that would be stranded on orbit for a significant period of time. But the satellites mentioned here didn't fail, nor did many of the others you're counting, so that figure has little relevance to any discussion on failure rates.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: StraumliBlight on 02/19/2024 06:12 pm
Assuming this capability is pursued further, that would seem like the most obvious application to me

Both RQ-180 and B-21 fly at extremely high altitudes, so less atmospheric effects and no cloud cover overhead.
At the same time, they both have demand for very high bandwidth data links that are also extremely stealthy and hard to jam given their mission set.

Optical links to satellites would seem to fit the bill perfectly, whether that's provided by Starlink or something like PWSA.

On the civilian side of things, maybe there's a market here for aircraft communications as well? Just for the higher throughput vs RF

There's Aalyria (https://breakingdefense.com/2022/10/aalyria-envisions-communications-revolution-for-earth-the-moon-and-beyond/), which Alphabet spun off its Project Loon balloon and laser comms tech into.

Quote
Aalyria is developing multiple versions of Tightbeam using different types of “eyes” for different missions and different platforms, i.e. ground stations, aircraft, stratospheric balloons, ships and/or spacecraft — or even between lunar stations and lunar orbiting satellites, back down to Earth.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Anguy on 02/19/2024 07:40 pm
Can't laser link combined with stationary baloon be used to serve higher density areas with Starlink? Satellites can transmit more data with laser to balloon and balloon can use it's more bigger capable antenna to connect to the nearby dishes. 
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/19/2024 07:56 pm
Can't laser link combined with stationary baloon be used to serve higher density areas with Starlink? Satellites can transmit more data with laser to balloon and balloon can use it's more bigger capable antenna to connect to the nearby dishes.
A "stationary balloon" is not simple. You can tether it, or power it, but sufficient power to stay in one place in all wind conditions is difficult, and tethering is also hard, but might be possible. If you want continuous laser connectivity, your balloon needs to be above the highest clouds: at least 30 km, which is too high for air-breathing engines. This can be achieved with a chain of balloons, each tethered to the next-lower balloon in the chain. minimize wind effects by using "kytoons" (kite-balloons).
      https://patents.google.com/patent/US9866324B2/en
If you are using radio there is no real advantage over just using the satellites, because you are limited by the RF bandwidth.

If you have a tethered balloon system, you can run a fiber optic link from the balloon to the ground. This avoids the RF bandwidth limitation. In high density areas, the subscribers can use fiber on the ground.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/19/2024 08:54 pm
I found this interesting:

“Another really fun fact is that we held a link all the way down to 122 kilometers while we were de-orbiting a satellite,” he said. “And we were able to downstream the video.” 

I assumed they had some cameras on each satellite but I don’t think we’ve seen any onboard footage. 

That would be fun to see.  Also what ground resolution they could possible achieve.  A full earth real time surveillance could be a huge produce and revenue stream.
Starlink laser link to stratospheric drones would be an interesting capability.

Assuming this capability is pursued further, that would seem like the most obvious application to me
<snip>
Hope I am not the prophet of doom.

The laserlinks will be very hard to disrupt.

Could see large orbital platforms with many laserlinks be use as real time target acquisition, tracking and guidance relays for sub-orbital and orbital munitions on surface and trans-atmospheric targets.

We might be heading into an E.E. "Doc" Smith universe. :)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: thespacecow on 02/24/2024 12:11 pm
NB: According to JCM's site: https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html (https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html) , there have been 5828 Starlink satellites launched, of which 5438 remain in orbit (-390), and 36 are screened as "failed/decaying", and other 43 as "disposal underway", for a total of 469 "out of order" Starlinks. This can imply some of the "100 vehicles" due for controlled deorbit are actually already undergoing the maneuvers (about half), or they may be mistagged in the database (some maybe, but unlikely for most). By the end of the upcoming 6-month period, and barring any strong infant mortality on recent or future launches, there will be around 530 deorbited Starlinks - or a stable 8-10% of the constellation, which has been the case since the early days of deployment, and was a topic of hot, contested debate among some forum members here back when statistics were still scarce.

That is non sense, simple math would show overall failure rate is decreasing going from V1.0 to V1.5 to V2 Mini:

V1.0: Total = 1725, Total Working = 1424, Failure Rate = 17.4%

V1.5: Total = 2987, Total Working = 2888, Failure Rate = 3.3%

V2 Mini: Total = 1158, Total Working = 1130, Failure Rate = 2.4%
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 02/24/2024 12:19 pm
NB: According to JCM's site: https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html (https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html) , there have been 5828 Starlink satellites launched, of which 5438 remain in orbit (-390), and 36 are screened as "failed/decaying", and other 43 as "disposal underway", for a total of 469 "out of order" Starlinks. This can imply some of the "100 vehicles" due for controlled deorbit are actually already undergoing the maneuvers (about half), or they may be mistagged in the database (some maybe, but unlikely for most). By the end of the upcoming 6-month period, and barring any strong infant mortality on recent or future launches, there will be around 530 deorbited Starlinks - or a stable 8-10% of the constellation, which has been the case since the early days of deployment, and was a topic of hot, contested debate among some forum members here back when statistics were still scarce.

That is non sense, simple math would show overall failure rate is decreasing going from V1.0 to V1.5 to V2 Mini:

V1.0: Total = 1725, Total Working = 1424, Failure Rate = 17.4%

V1.5: Total = 2987, Total Working = 2888, Failure Rate = 3.3%

V2 Mini: Total = 1158, Total Working = 1130, Failure Rate = 2.4%

Simple statistics shows this argument, just as it was years ago at the beginning of Starlink deployment, is nonsense. It's evident that recently-launched spacecraft will need time to develop a failure rate unless you're analyzing infant mortality rates. None of them has completed its expected pre-launch nominal lifetime cycle. The 100 or so v1 satellites to be deorbited soon were not specified as belonging to 1.0 or 1.5 (or 1.9, there was at one time), so the above rates predate my statement anyway.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: rsdavis9 on 02/24/2024 12:51 pm
Any discussion on aluminum in the upper atmosphere from reentering spacecraft?
If it is determined to be a problem how might it be mitigated?
1. Make spacecraft last longer
2. use a different metal
3. Collect the older satellites and put in starship for a return to earth

Is starlink the major contributer right now to reentering and burning up metal?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: thespacecow on 02/24/2024 01:01 pm
NB: According to JCM's site: https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html (https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html) , there have been 5828 Starlink satellites launched, of which 5438 remain in orbit (-390), and 36 are screened as "failed/decaying", and other 43 as "disposal underway", for a total of 469 "out of order" Starlinks. This can imply some of the "100 vehicles" due for controlled deorbit are actually already undergoing the maneuvers (about half), or they may be mistagged in the database (some maybe, but unlikely for most). By the end of the upcoming 6-month period, and barring any strong infant mortality on recent or future launches, there will be around 530 deorbited Starlinks - or a stable 8-10% of the constellation, which has been the case since the early days of deployment, and was a topic of hot, contested debate among some forum members here back when statistics were still scarce.

That is non sense, simple math would show overall failure rate is decreasing going from V1.0 to V1.5 to V2 Mini:

V1.0: Total = 1725, Total Working = 1424, Failure Rate = 17.4%

V1.5: Total = 2987, Total Working = 2888, Failure Rate = 3.3%

V2 Mini: Total = 1158, Total Working = 1130, Failure Rate = 2.4%

Simple statistics shows this argument, just as it was years ago at the beginning of Starlink deployment, is nonsense. It's evident that recently-launched spacecraft will need time to develop a failure rate unless you're analyzing infant mortality rates.

It's trivially easy to take the age of the satellites into account, by using web archive version of JCM's site.

For example, Group 5 v1.5 has a failure rate of (699-692)/699 =1% as of right now, it's launched between Dec 2022 and July 2023, roughly 7 to 14 months ago, average age is ~10.5 months

Group 1 Visorsat Launches 19+ (V1.0 L17+) was launched between Mar 2021 and May 2021, so to check their statistics at ~10.5 months, we can look up the JCM site on March 1st, 2022, which shows this group has a failure rate of (712-693)/712 = 2.7%

Turns out the simple statistics is directionally correct, who knew...
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/24/2024 01:17 pm
24 v2 Minis on SL 6-39 upcoming.  If 750 kg each would total 18 tonnes.  If 730 kg would be 17.5 tonnes.  If 720 kg would be 17.25 tonnes.  I doubt 18 tonnes for a recoverable launch.  Original Block 5 spec was 16.25 tonnes to an ISS bound orbit.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 02/24/2024 02:03 pm
NB: According to JCM's site: https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html (https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html) , there have been 5828 Starlink satellites launched, of which 5438 remain in orbit (-390), and 36 are screened as "failed/decaying", and other 43 as "disposal underway", for a total of 469 "out of order" Starlinks. This can imply some of the "100 vehicles" due for controlled deorbit are actually already undergoing the maneuvers (about half), or they may be mistagged in the database (some maybe, but unlikely for most). By the end of the upcoming 6-month period, and barring any strong infant mortality on recent or future launches, there will be around 530 deorbited Starlinks - or a stable 8-10% of the constellation, which has been the case since the early days of deployment, and was a topic of hot, contested debate among some forum members here back when statistics were still scarce.

That is non sense, simple math would show overall failure rate is decreasing going from V1.0 to V1.5 to V2 Mini:

V1.0: Total = 1725, Total Working = 1424, Failure Rate = 17.4%

V1.5: Total = 2987, Total Working = 2888, Failure Rate = 3.3%

V2 Mini: Total = 1158, Total Working = 1130, Failure Rate = 2.4%

Simple statistics shows this argument, just as it was years ago at the beginning of Starlink deployment, is nonsense. It's evident that recently-launched spacecraft will need time to develop a failure rate unless you're analyzing infant mortality rates.

It's trivially easy to take the age of the satellites into account, by using web archive version of JCM's site.

For example, Group 5 v1.5 has a failure rate of (699-692)/699 =1% as of right now, it's launched between Dec 2022 and July 2023, roughly 7 to 14 months ago, average age is ~10.5 months

Group 1 Visorsat Launches 19+ (V1.0 L17+) was launched between Mar 2021 and May 2021, so to check their statistics at ~10.5 months, we can look up the JCM site on March 1st, 2022, which shows this group has a failure rate of (712-693)/712 = 2.7%

Turns out the simple statistics is directionally correct, who knew...

Sure, please do continue imposing a priori biases in your analysis by cherrypicking. Plus, the "directional correctness" you're alluding to is entirely decoupled from the statistics you defended in your prior post. And does nothing to explain the overall constellation-wide failure rate.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/24/2024 02:07 pm
24 v2 Minis on SL 6-39 upcoming.  If 750 kg each would total 18 tonnes.  If 730 kg would be 17.5 tonnes.  If 720 kg would be 17.25 tonnes.  I doubt 18 tonnes for a recoverable launch.  Original Block 5 spec was 16.25 tonnes to an ISS bound orbit.

 - Ed Kyle

To repeat the context here in case it is not top of mind, SpaceX has filed with the FCC indicating that the v2 mini without direct-to-cell payload masses as much as 800 kg and with direct-to-cell payload as much as 970 kg.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/24/2024 08:53 pm
Any discussion on aluminum in the upper atmosphere from reentering spacecraft?
If it is determined to be a problem how might it be mitigated?
1. Make spacecraft last longer
2. use a different metal
3. Collect the older satellites and put in starship for a return to earth

Is starlink the major contributer right now to reentering and burning up metal?

AIUI, the amount of metal from reentering orbital debris is inconsequential compare to the amount of metal in meteoroids and other deep space debris falling to Earth.

Major contributor to aluminum dust in the upper atmosphere are solid rocket motors using aluminum as fuel.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: thespacecow on 02/25/2024 11:58 am
NB: According to JCM's site: https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html (https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html) , there have been 5828 Starlink satellites launched, of which 5438 remain in orbit (-390), and 36 are screened as "failed/decaying", and other 43 as "disposal underway", for a total of 469 "out of order" Starlinks. This can imply some of the "100 vehicles" due for controlled deorbit are actually already undergoing the maneuvers (about half), or they may be mistagged in the database (some maybe, but unlikely for most). By the end of the upcoming 6-month period, and barring any strong infant mortality on recent or future launches, there will be around 530 deorbited Starlinks - or a stable 8-10% of the constellation, which has been the case since the early days of deployment, and was a topic of hot, contested debate among some forum members here back when statistics were still scarce.

That is non sense, simple math would show overall failure rate is decreasing going from V1.0 to V1.5 to V2 Mini:

V1.0: Total = 1725, Total Working = 1424, Failure Rate = 17.4%

V1.5: Total = 2987, Total Working = 2888, Failure Rate = 3.3%

V2 Mini: Total = 1158, Total Working = 1130, Failure Rate = 2.4%

Simple statistics shows this argument, just as it was years ago at the beginning of Starlink deployment, is nonsense. It's evident that recently-launched spacecraft will need time to develop a failure rate unless you're analyzing infant mortality rates.

It's trivially easy to take the age of the satellites into account, by using web archive version of JCM's site.

For example, Group 5 v1.5 has a failure rate of (699-692)/699 =1% as of right now, it's launched between Dec 2022 and July 2023, roughly 7 to 14 months ago, average age is ~10.5 months

Group 1 Visorsat Launches 19+ (V1.0 L17+) was launched between Mar 2021 and May 2021, so to check their statistics at ~10.5 months, we can look up the JCM site on March 1st, 2022, which shows this group has a failure rate of (712-693)/712 = 2.7%

Turns out the simple statistics is directionally correct, who knew...

Sure, please do continue imposing a priori biases in your analysis by cherrypicking. Plus, the "directional correctness" you're alluding to is entirely decoupled from the statistics you defended in your prior post. And does nothing to explain the overall constellation-wide failure rate.

I'm not the one with a gigantic axe to grind against SpaceX and Elon Musk.

I picked the last group of the V1.0 and V1.5, there's zero cherrypicking, it is as it should be, and the result support my early conclusions.

As for overall constellation failure rate, if you actually read my earlier comment, it should be obvious that it is caused by high failure rate in V1.0 which is proven by my 2nd comment.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/25/2024 03:25 pm
24 v2 Minis on SL 6-39 upcoming.  If 750 kg each would total 18 tonnes.  If 730 kg would be 17.5 tonnes.  If 720 kg would be 17.25 tonnes.  I doubt 18 tonnes for a recoverable launch.  Original Block 5 spec was 16.25 tonnes to an ISS bound orbit.

 - Ed Kyle

To repeat the context here in case it is not top of mind, SpaceX has filed with the FCC indicating that the v2 mini without direct-to-cell payload masses as much as 800 kg and with direct-to-cell payload as much as 970 kg.
I think that the phrase "as much as" is important here.   19.2 tonnes to a 43 deg LEO from the Cape seems to me beyond a recoverable Falcon 9's ability.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 02/25/2024 06:33 pm
I'm not the one with a gigantic axe to grind against SpaceX and Elon Musk.

I picked the last group of the V1.0 and V1.5, there's zero cherrypicking, it is as it should be, and the result support my early conclusions.

As for overall constellation failure rate, if you actually read my earlier comment, it should be obvious that it is caused by high failure rate in V1.0 which is proven by my 2nd comment.

Oh, there we go, didn't take you long to pass from faulty analyses to ad-hominems: dispassionately pointing out there exists an objective, stable, consistent 8-10% failure rate in overall Starlink satellites since the beginning of availability of meaningful statistics, is having "an axe to grind against SpaceX and Elon Musk". No less. Strawman 101.

May it be, let me hazard a guess, you are the one wielding axes here? Of course, it's trivially easy to find out by just looking at your posting profile, started barely half a year ago and exhibiting a consistently aggressive tone regarding a certain worldview. You haven't yet reached the expletive phase like prior occasions, keep it up.

Anyway, that's regrettably not how you do statistics. You see, you don't get to pick a certain sample, whether you consider it biased or not, and derive whatever conclusions from there for the whole population - especially when the numbers you get only qualitatively seem to support your thesis even when you cherrypick them (namely, if I understand it right, that the reliability rates are extraordinarily higher with newer than with older satellites, and that roughly keeps improving every time new satellites are launched).

It's actually much easier than that. Two years ago, back when you still hadn't started any posting here, we had a 9% failure rate in the overall constellation of ~1500 satellites, including recently-launched new S/C (~Group 4-7, back when most satellites were v1.0 and most if not all v1.5 were brand new). EDIT: Forgot the link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54782.msg2330532#msg2330532 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54782.msg2330532#msg2330532)

Now, by your thesis, that failure rate should be significantly higher than what's observed today, because v1.0 S/C have an intrinsic lower reliability than the newer versions, which moreover does not depend on elapsed service time, right? According to your assertion, even when normalizing for lifetime in orbit, or in other words considering the same on-orbit time for both, a sample of older spacecraft will exhibit a significantly larger failure rate than a newer one. Not only that, but having 4x the number of satellites and many more recently-launched ones, the reliability of the statistics should be better courtesy of the law of large numbers, plus help prop the numbers up in favor of better Starlinks as time goes on, since there are more young birds courtesy of a much higher recent launch rate, tripled with respect to 2021.

And yet, here were are, two years and 4000 new S/C later, we still have almost exactly a 9% overall failure rate. Q.E.D.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: abaddon on 02/25/2024 07:09 pm
According to Jonathan McDowell (https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html), 392 total satellites over the lifetime of Starlink are "down" and 5480 are "on orbit".  That gives us 5872 total satellites, of which 6.68% have been deorbited.  He classifies 2.2% of total Starlinks as "early deorbit", 3.7% as "disposal complete", and 0.8% as "reentry after fail".  I haven't done the math to try and figure out what the trend has been over time, but that's already lower than "9%", so I'm not sure what source you're using.  I'm not going to get into classifying all deorbited satellites as "failed", which I believe is being unreasonably pessimistic.

[EDIT] Looking at stats over time, it's clear that the deorbit percentage is heavily weighted towards early shells that have seen much higher rates of disposal, which makes sense:


  2      0      2 100.00%
 60      0     60 100.00%
 84    336    420  20.00%
 93    440    533  17.45%
 41    671    712   5.76%
  3    405    408   0.74%
 10      3     13  76.92%
  0    230    230   0.00%
 72   1565   1637   4.40%*
  6    693    699   0.86%
 21    813    834   2.52%
  0    324    324   0.00%
392   5480   5872   6.68%


*21 satellites lost immediately after launch due to higher-than-predicted solar activity; without those 21 the stats would be 51 1565 1616 3.16%
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 02/25/2024 09:34 pm
According to Jonathan McDowell (https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html), 392 total satellites over the lifetime of Starlink are "down" and 5480 are "on orbit".  That gives us 5872 total satellites, of which 6.68% have been deorbited.  He classifies 2.2% of total Starlinks as "early deorbit", 3.7% as "disposal complete", and 0.8% as "reentry after fail".  I haven't done the math to try and figure out what the trend has been over time, but that's already lower than "9%", so I'm not sure what source you're using.  I'm not going to get into classifying all deorbited satellites as "failed", which I believe is being unreasonably pessimistic.

[EDIT] Looking at stats over time, it's clear that the deorbit percentage is heavily weighted towards early shells that have seen much higher rates of disposal, which makes sense:


  2      0      2 100.00%
 60      0     60 100.00%
 84    336    420  20.00%
 93    440    533  17.45%
 41    671    712   5.76%
  3    405    408   0.74%
 10      3     13  76.92%
  0    230    230   0.00%
 72   1565   1637   4.40%*
  6    693    699   0.86%
 21    813    834   2.52%
  0    324    324   0.00%
392   5480   5872   6.68%


*21 satellites lost immediately after launch due to higher-than-predicted solar activity; without those 21 the stats would be 51 1565 1616 3.16%

If you reread my comment upthread that started the exchange with thespacecow, I took into account the satellites that are to be deorbited in the coming weeks, the majority of which are not yet classified as "not working" in JCM's page.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 02/26/2024 12:51 am
According to Jonathan McDowell (https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html), 392 total satellites over the lifetime of Starlink are "down" and 5480 are "on orbit".  That gives us 5872 total satellites, of which 6.68% have been deorbited.  He classifies 2.2% of total Starlinks as "early deorbit", 3.7% as "disposal complete", and 0.8% as "reentry after fail".  I haven't done the math to try and figure out what the trend has been over time, but that's already lower than "9%", so I'm not sure what source you're using.  I'm not going to get into classifying all deorbited satellites as "failed", which I believe is being unreasonably pessimistic.

[EDIT] Looking at stats over time, it's clear that the deorbit percentage is heavily weighted towards early shells that have seen much higher rates of disposal, which makes sense:


  2      0      2 100.00%
 60      0     60 100.00%
 84    336    420  20.00%
 93    440    533  17.45%
 41    671    712   5.76%
  3    405    408   0.74%
 10      3     13  76.92%
  0    230    230   0.00%
 72   1565   1637   4.40%*
  6    693    699   0.86%
 21    813    834   2.52%
  0    324    324   0.00%
392   5480   5872   6.68%


*21 satellites lost immediately after launch due to higher-than-predicted solar activity; without those 21 the stats would be 51 1565 1616 3.16%

If you reread my comment upthread that started the exchange with thespacecow, I took into account the satellites that are to be deorbited in the coming weeks, the majority of which are not yet classified as "not working" in JCM's page.

Are you counting the tintin sats as failures?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: cpushack on 02/26/2024 05:02 am
According to Jonathan McDowell (https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html), 392 total satellites over the lifetime of Starlink are "down" and 5480 are "on orbit".  That gives us 5872 total satellites, of which 6.68% have been deorbited.  He classifies 2.2% of total Starlinks as "early deorbit", 3.7% as "disposal complete", and 0.8% as "reentry after fail".  I haven't done the math to try and figure out what the trend has been over time, but that's already lower than "9%", so I'm not sure what source you're using.  I'm not going to get into classifying all deorbited satellites as "failed", which I believe is being unreasonably pessimistic.

[EDIT] Looking at stats over time, it's clear that the deorbit percentage is heavily weighted towards early shells that have seen much higher rates of disposal, which makes sense:


  2      0      2 100.00%
 60      0     60 100.00%
 84    336    420  20.00%
 93    440    533  17.45%
 41    671    712   5.76%
  3    405    408   0.74%
 10      3     13  76.92%
  0    230    230   0.00%
 72   1565   1637   4.40%*
  6    693    699   0.86%
 21    813    834   2.52%
  0    324    324   0.00%
392   5480   5872   6.68%


*21 satellites lost immediately after launch due to higher-than-predicted solar activity; without those 21 the stats would be 51 1565 1616 3.16%

If you reread my comment upthread that started the exchange with thespacecow, I took into account the satellites that are to be deorbited in the coming weeks, the majority of which are not yet classified as "not working" in JCM's page.

Are you counting the tintin sats as failures?

tintin, and some of the others deorbited should not be failures, they were deorbited because they were no longer needed, or were test satellites (like when testing various darkening techniques)

We can't assume that because any given satellite deorbited it was a failure. Especially on the early missions, out of every set of satellites SpaceX included several testing new/different configs.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 02/26/2024 08:09 am
No, I'm not counting Tintins as failures, although they would be inconsequential given the total number.

You can do all the pretzel-twisting you want, but we're talking about S/C that are for whatever reason falling out of the constellation for good. That tracks, for many analytical purposes, with the fraction of launched satellites that will not complete the original/expected in-orbit service lifetime.

And anyway, the claim I was answering to was a different one, where we had a shared definition of what "failed" meant.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: thespacecow on 02/26/2024 11:36 am
I'm not the one with a gigantic axe to grind against SpaceX and Elon Musk.

I picked the last group of the V1.0 and V1.5, there's zero cherrypicking, it is as it should be, and the result support my early conclusions.

As for overall constellation failure rate, if you actually read my earlier comment, it should be obvious that it is caused by high failure rate in V1.0 which is proven by my 2nd comment.

Oh, there we go, didn't take you long to pass from faulty analyses to ad-hominems: dispassionately pointing out there exists an objective, stable, consistent 8-10% failure rate in overall Starlink satellites since the beginning of availability of meaningful statistics, is having "an axe to grind against SpaceX and Elon Musk". No less. Strawman 101.

Funny that you claim me having a (presumably pro-SpaceX) bias is not ad-hominems by your standard, while I claiming "I'm not the one having an anti-SpaceX bias" - which btw is a verifiable fact - is claimed to be "ad-hominems", hypocrisy much?

And the so called "objective, stable, consistent 8-10% failure rate" is meaningless, which is very easy to show by simple math.

Quote
It's actually much easier than that. Two years ago, back when you still hadn't started any posting here, we had a 9% failure rate in the overall constellation of ~1500 satellites, including recently-launched new S/C (~Group 4-7, back when most satellites were v1.0 and most if not all v1.5 were brand new).
...
And yet, here were are, two years and 4000 new S/C later, we still have almost exactly a 9% overall failure rate. Q.E.D.

So? What have you proven exactly?

The overall failure rate is useless, as you can easily get a "objective, stable, consistent" failure rate even if every satellite after V1.0 worked perfectly, here's a hypothetical scenario:

Two years ago, assuming all 1,500 satellites are V1.0, failure rate of 9% gives 135 failed V1.0 satellites

Today, assuming all 4,000 new satellites are V1.5 and V2.0, and all of them have NOT failed, you can still get 9% overall failure rate if V1.0 has an additional 360 failed satellites.

QED the overall failure rate is meaningless. Even if SpaceX achieved great improvement in V1.5 and V2.0 in terms of reliability, the overall failure rate would not improve if they keep having too many failures in V1.0.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 02/26/2024 11:38 am
No, I'm not counting Tintins as failures, although they would be inconsequential given the total number.

You can do all the pretzel-twisting you want, but we're talking about S/C that are for whatever reason falling out of the constellation for good. That tracks, for many analytical purposes, with the fraction of launched satellites that will not complete the original/expected in-orbit service lifetime.

And anyway, the claim I was answering to was a different one, where we had a shared definition of what "failed" meant.

I don't see any shared definition of "failure" in this thread recently. Can you refresh everyone on that?

You seemed to be using deorbit as indicating failure, which is why I asked about the tintin Starlinks. But if we agree that some Starlinks did not fail but did deorbit, then how can we tell which other Starlinks did not fail but did deorbit? And how would one validate your thesis that the number of non-failures that did deorbit is "inconsequential"?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ulm_atms on 02/26/2024 11:58 am
You know, there is no way to really know this without SpaceX flat telling us the reason for every...single...de-orbit.  A few we can infer sure...but not enough to truly know why each one was de-orbited, and for what reasons(failure or otherwise).

This is why everyone seems right....so much inference with little hard data/facts.  But this is what we do here in lack of that hard data...unfortunately...  ::)

Can we stick to the facts?  Example:

Starlink has a de-orbit rate of X% over Y% time.  Those would be known facts.  Reason for the de-orbits?  Now your reaching unless you work for SpaceX/Starlink IMO.

And remember all, lets all attack the arguments...not the people!  ;)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 02/26/2024 02:50 pm
[...]
And the so called "objective, stable, consistent 8-10% failure rate" is meaningless, which is very easy to show by simple math.
Quote
It's actually much easier than that. Two years ago, back when you still hadn't started any posting here, we had a 9% failure rate in the overall constellation of ~1500 satellites, including recently-launched new S/C (~Group 4-7, back when most satellites were v1.0 and most if not all v1.5 were brand new). And yet, here were are, two years and 4000 new S/C later, we still have almost exactly a 9% overall failure rate. Q.E.D.
So? What have you proven exactly?
The overall failure rate is useless, as you can easily get a "objective, stable, consistent" failure rate even if every satellite after V1.0 worked perfectly, here's a hypothetical scenario:
Two years ago, assuming all 1,500 satellites are V1.0, failure rate of 9% gives 135 failed V1.0 satellites
Today, assuming all 4,000 new satellites are V1.5 and V2.0, and all of them have NOT failed, you can still get 9% overall failure rate if V1.0 has an additional 360 failed satellites.
QED the overall failure rate is meaningless. Even if SpaceX achieved great improvement in V1.5 and V2.0 in terms of reliability, the overall failure rate would not improve if they keep having too many failures in V1.0.

See, you keep stumbling with the same ball. The discussion is getting tiring for everyone around, so I'll keep it simple: you're doing a reductio ad absurdum, and ignoring your own numbers in search of a pre-cooked thesis.

Instead of grasping at the last straw (which by the way also disproves your prior "analysis", given you chose a biased time normalization with a non-randomized sample group, suggesting it's meaningless to derive any conclusion through sampling), you could have used the time to look for a second at the data in JCM's page. Then, you would have realized your statements are nonsensical and counterfactual.
 
But I chose to go ahead with a fuller analysis and actually plot the failure rate of each subgroup considered there, not including the newly-defective 100 (v1.0 AND v1.5) spacecraft that are to be deorbited soon, normalizing for average on-orbit lifetime for each group. Note Groups 2 and 3 have bimodal launch distributions, having an early first deployment 1-2 years before the rest - I've averaged that out, but it won't really affect the conclusions: there isn't a monotonous increase in reliability with newer spacecraft. Actually, when considering the amount of time v2Minis have been in orbit compared to their oldest siblings, their failure rate is comparable to the first satellites ever launched to the constellation (including more or less experimental craft that weren't meant to endure). Not only that, but the most recent Group 7 birds have comparable lifetime-weighted failure rates than v1.5's.

I'm sure a more in-depth analysis would raise some more "surprises", but here's that, I already devoted too much time to this for now. Oh, by the way, the satellites coming down in the coming months are classed as "v1", which means there will be v1.5's. It's anyone's guess what percentage of the total they will be, but for sure not negligible. So yeah, QED.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 02/26/2024 02:57 pm
No, I'm not counting Tintins as failures, although they would be inconsequential given the total number.

You can do all the pretzel-twisting you want, but we're talking about S/C that are for whatever reason falling out of the constellation for good. That tracks, for many analytical purposes, with the fraction of launched satellites that will not complete the original/expected in-orbit service lifetime.

And anyway, the claim I was answering to was a different one, where we had a shared definition of what "failed" meant.

I don't see any shared definition of "failure" in this thread recently. Can you refresh everyone on that?

You seemed to be using deorbit as indicating failure, which is why I asked about the tintin Starlinks. But if we agree that some Starlinks did not fail but did deorbit, then how can we tell which other Starlinks did not fail but did deorbit? And how would one validate your thesis that the number of non-failures that did deorbit is "inconsequential"?

I'm not even considering v0.9's for that matter.

There are limitations to any analysis, and you can find reasons why there's no such thing as a true Scotsman - sorry, failure. Some will be "willful" failures because they were meant to be deorbited early, some will be "accidental" failures because some external factor, some will be "quality-but-not-really-by-design" failures, some will be "precautionary" failures because the risk of continuing to fly them with known issues is greater than bringing them down... At the end of the day, the least biased handle we have on "lost" satellites is to count those that have fallen down for one reason or another. Of course, some analyses may require other criteria: only non-maneuverable satellites for collision avoidance analysis, or maneuverable but non-emitting satellites for comms payload reliability.

Regarding my "inconsequential" statement, please reread it again. I mentioned Tintins were so few against the total constellation size (2/5900) that it doesn't matter if you include them or not.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/26/2024 02:57 pm
What will this argument prove? All SpaceX cares about is profitability of the network. If launching 100 cheap sats with a 10% failure rate achieves that better than 50 expensive sats with a 1% failure rate, then that’s what they’ll happily do. And just replace the deorbited ones.

So while nerds might obsess over whether the failure rate is 3% or 5%, SpaceX will focus on whether annual Starlink profit is $3B or $5B, failure rate notwithstanding.

And yes, as with everything they do, over time the failure rate will improve too. If it makes them more profit to invest in that improvement.

So another massive storm in a teacup brewed up here.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/26/2024 03:05 pm
What will this argument prove? All SpaceX cares about is profitability of the network. If launching 100 cheap sats with a 10% failure rate achieves that better than 50 expensive sats with a 1% failure rate, then that’s what they’ll happily do. And just replace the deorbited ones.

So while nerds might obsess over whether the failure rate is 3% or 5%, SpaceX will focus on whether annual Starlink profit is $3B or $5B, failure rate notwithstanding.

And yes, as with everything they do, over time the failure rate will improve too. If it makes them more profit to invest in that improvement.

So another massive storm in a teacup brewed up here.
They will eventually replace all of the existing satellites with the big Starship version of V.2, so we are really just discussing the average satellite lifetime, which translates to the number of F9 launches needed to build and maintain Starlink before Starship is fully operational. The Starship development schedule is more important than the current satellite failure rate.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 02/26/2024 03:08 pm
What will this argument prove? All SpaceX cares about is profitability of the network. If launching 100 cheap sats with a 10% failure rate achieves that better than 50 expensive sats with a 1% failure rate, then that’s what they’ll happily do. And just replace the deorbited ones.

So while nerds might obsess over whether the failure rate is 3% or 5%, SpaceX will focus on whether annual Starlink profit is $3B or $5B, failure rate notwithstanding.

And yes, as with everything they do, over time the failure rate will improve too. If it makes them more profit to invest in that improvement.

So another massive storm in a teacup brewed up here.

I don't know, I wasn't the one trying to imply great conclusions from a simple analysis. Why do some people always operate with ulterior motives? Isn't it enough to be able to say: "hey look at this fun fact, overall reliability rates are mostly flat throughout the constellation's deployment, isn't that something?" after a factual update by SpaceX disclosing a precautionary deorbit campaign?

On other news, this a spaceflight forum, and I'm a physicist-engineer. I have little interest about the financials except for what they mean with respect to space operations. I'm sure accountants in SpaceX have other motivations, while perhaps the engineers there have others closer to mine. But none of us have the slightest interest in statements of faith.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/26/2024 03:49 pm
For Starlink 6-39, per Elon's tweet about a record 17.5 t payload, 17,500 kg / 24 = 729.17 kg for each satellite on this down-range-first-stage-recovery flight, assuming "useful load" means Starlinks.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 02/26/2024 04:37 pm
No, I'm not counting Tintins as failures, although they would be inconsequential given the total number.

You can do all the pretzel-twisting you want, but we're talking about S/C that are for whatever reason falling out of the constellation for good. That tracks, for many analytical purposes, with the fraction of launched satellites that will not complete the original/expected in-orbit service lifetime.

And anyway, the claim I was answering to was a different one, where we had a shared definition of what "failed" meant.

I don't see any shared definition of "failure" in this thread recently. Can you refresh everyone on that?

You seemed to be using deorbit as indicating failure, which is why I asked about the tintin Starlinks. But if we agree that some Starlinks did not fail but did deorbit, then how can we tell which other Starlinks did not fail but did deorbit? And how would one validate your thesis that the number of non-failures that did deorbit is "inconsequential"?

I'm not even considering v0.9's for that matter.

There are limitations to any analysis, and you can find reasons why there's no such thing as a true Scotsman - sorry, failure. Some will be "willful" failures because they were meant to be deorbited early, some will be "accidental" failures because some external factor, some will be "quality-but-not-really-by-design" failures, some will be "precautionary" failures because the risk of continuing to fly them with known issues is greater than bringing them down... At the end of the day, the least biased handle we have on "lost" satellites is to count those that have fallen down for one reason or another. Of course, some analyses may require other criteria: only non-maneuverable satellites for collision avoidance analysis, or maneuverable but non-emitting satellites for comms payload reliability.

Regarding my "inconsequential" statement, please reread it again. I mentioned Tintins were so few against the total constellation size (2/5900) that it doesn't matter if you include them or not.

It seems to me that the term you're looking for is longevity, not reliability.

Reliability, from an engineering standpoint, means meeting a set of specific operating requirements. Functioning until an arbitrary EOL date regardless of all other considerations is not how any sane engineer would define reliability.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/26/2024 05:06 pm
SpaceX is aiming for 28 v2 mini satellites per launch by the end of the year.

https://twitter.com/michaelnicollsx/status/1762149124949049627
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: abaddon on 02/26/2024 05:38 pm
SpaceX is aiming for 28 v2 mini satellites per launch by the end of the year.
Interesting.  Four more satellites, assuming the same mass as the ones just launched, would bring the "useful payload" to 20417kg.  Presumably there would have to be mass savings involved on the satellites as that seems like far too big a jump for F9 to make without some sort of major change.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/27/2024 04:50 am
SpaceX is aiming for 28 v2 mini satellites per launch by the end of the year.

 Total data capacity wise, wouldn't that be just about double per launch compared to the v1.5 days?

Maybe the tedious discussion above about failure rates should have included failure/thruput metrics?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: tntnt on 02/27/2024 10:21 am
Starlink has a de-orbit rate of X% over Y% time.  Those would be known facts.

Sorry to jump back to tedious discussion =) But I was interested in what this looks like so grabbed some data from GCAT (J. McDowell, https://planet4589.org/space/gcat).

The lines track the number of reentries of the group against launched, at the time of the reentry noted in GCAT.

Although useful now (within the 5ish year lifetimes), after putting it together I've realised all the lines will trend to 100% over time. Some kind of rolling "age at reentry" average line might be a more useful view once renewal starts to dominate the reentry numbers.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 02/27/2024 12:05 pm
Starlink has a de-orbit rate of X% over Y% time.  Those would be known facts.

Sorry to jump back to tedious discussion =) But I was interested in what this looks like so grabbed some data from GCAT (J. McDowell, https://planet4589.org/space/gcat).

The lines track the number of reentries of the group against launched, at the time of the reentry noted in GCAT.

Although useful now (within the 5ish year lifetimes), after putting it together I've realised all the lines will trend to 100% over time. Some kind of rolling "age at reentry" average line might be a more useful view once renewal starts to dominate the reentry numbers.

This is what the discussion should include! The v1.5 and v2 lines look like the left half of bathtub curves.

What does the early launches data look like if you roll everything before v1.5 into 1 group?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: ulm_atms on 02/27/2024 02:10 pm
Starlink has a de-orbit rate of X% over Y% time.  Those would be known facts.

Sorry to jump back to tedious discussion =) But I was interested in what this looks like so grabbed some data from GCAT (J. McDowell, https://planet4589.org/space/gcat).

The lines track the number of reentries of the group against launched, at the time of the reentry noted in GCAT.

Although useful now (within the 5ish year lifetimes), after putting it together I've realised all the lines will trend to 100% over time. Some kind of rolling "age at reentry" average line might be a more useful view once renewal starts to dominate the reentry numbers.
This is not said enough on this forum but THANK YOU for data!!!  I appreciate the time it took to put this together...so another thanks!
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: tntnt on 02/28/2024 05:55 am
This is what the discussion should include! The v1.5 and v2 lines look like the left half of bathtub curves.

What does the early launches data look like if you roll everything before v1.5 into 1 group?
Do you mean v1.0 + v1.5 excluding v0.9?
I had a version at one stage that included that line, but it was very similar to what you see and seemed to only add clutter to that graph as it's basically the v1.0 line + move the blue line down. An uncluttered version attached
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: thespacecow on 02/28/2024 02:19 pm
[...]
And the so called "objective, stable, consistent 8-10% failure rate" is meaningless, which is very easy to show by simple math.
Quote
It's actually much easier than that. Two years ago, back when you still hadn't started any posting here, we had a 9% failure rate in the overall constellation of ~1500 satellites, including recently-launched new S/C (~Group 4-7, back when most satellites were v1.0 and most if not all v1.5 were brand new). And yet, here were are, two years and 4000 new S/C later, we still have almost exactly a 9% overall failure rate. Q.E.D.
So? What have you proven exactly?
The overall failure rate is useless, as you can easily get a "objective, stable, consistent" failure rate even if every satellite after V1.0 worked perfectly, here's a hypothetical scenario:
Two years ago, assuming all 1,500 satellites are V1.0, failure rate of 9% gives 135 failed V1.0 satellites
Today, assuming all 4,000 new satellites are V1.5 and V2.0, and all of them have NOT failed, you can still get 9% overall failure rate if V1.0 has an additional 360 failed satellites.
QED the overall failure rate is meaningless. Even if SpaceX achieved great improvement in V1.5 and V2.0 in terms of reliability, the overall failure rate would not improve if they keep having too many failures in V1.0.

See, you keep stumbling with the same ball. The discussion is getting tiring for everyone around, so I'll keep it simple: you're doing a reductio ad absurdum, and ignoring your own numbers in search of a pre-cooked thesis.

Well reductio ad absurdum works, and it proved your obsession with total failure rate is non-sense, so far I have not seen any disagreement on this, and you have abandoned it all together and come up with something else to argue with.

Quote
 
But I chose to go ahead with a fuller analysis and actually plot the failure rate of each subgroup considered there, not including the newly-defective 100 (v1.0 AND v1.5) spacecraft that are to be deorbited soon, normalizing for average on-orbit lifetime for each group. Note Groups 2 and 3 have bimodal launch distributions, having an early first deployment 1-2 years before the rest - I've averaged that out, but it won't really affect the conclusions: there isn't a monotonous increase in reliability with newer spacecraft.

Yes there is, you're not seeing it because you're not sorting the groups correctly. You're using the group order on JCM's page, but that order is not sorted by average satellite age of the group. The order for v1.0 and v2.0 are correct, but for v1.5, the correct order is this:

Starlink Group 4 V1.5 Launches: Average Age = 1.75 years
Starlink Group 3 V1.5 Launches: Average Age = 1.51 years
Starlink Group 2 V1.5 Launches: Average Age = 1.14 years
Starlink Group 5 V2.0F9-1 Launches (V1.5, Gen2 G5 shell): Average Age = 0.86 years

Once you redraw your bar chart by this order, there's clearly a monotonous decrease in normalized failure rate inside each version.

There's also a decrease in normalized failure rate between v1.0 and v1.5 overall, which is exactly what my previous calculation shows using the last group of v1.0 and v1.5, turns out whether it's cherry picked does not matter one bit.

The only anomaly is v2.0's normalized failure rate comparing to v1.0 and v1.5, but that can be easily explained by its short time on orbit so far and the fact that it is an entirely new satellite bus with new propellant.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 02/28/2024 03:17 pm
Yes there is, you're not seeing it because you're not sorting the groups correctly. You're using the group order on JCM's page, but that order is not sorted by average satellite age of the group. The order for v1.0 and v2.0 are correct, but for v1.5, the correct order is this:

Starlink Group 4 V1.5 Launches: Average Age = 1.75 years
Starlink Group 3 V1.5 Launches: Average Age = 1.51 years
Starlink Group 2 V1.5 Launches: Average Age = 1.14 years
Starlink Group 5 V2.0F9-1 Launches (V1.5, Gen2 G5 shell): Average Age = 0.86 years

Once you redraw your bar chart by this order, there's clearly a monotonous decrease in normalized failure rate inside each version.

There's also a decrease in normalized failure rate between v1.0 and v1.5 overall, which is exactly what my previous calculation shows using the last group of v1.0 and v1.5, turns out whether it's cherry picked does not matter one bit.

The only anomaly is v2.0's normalized failure rate comparing to v1.0 and v1.5, but that can be easily explained by its short time on orbit so far and the fact that it is an entirely new satellite bus with new propellant.

I actually know how to do an analysis, while apparently you don't (or choose not to). I considered all the launch dates from the great Gunter Space Page: space.skyrocket.de Numbers I used for the time-normalization are actually quite close to what you propose, ironically, although not exactly the same.

As I specified, there are satellites in Groups 2 and 3 that were launched at during two earlier and later launch campaigns, which I accounted for by averaging their dates out. Even weighing them more conservatively would not change the message from the plot, namely that there isn't a strict relationship between later versions of Starlink satellites and increased reliability, which you are admitting and trying to fudge out of by handwaving v2Mini "particularities" (even though they make up 32% of the current constellation and have just been launched, thus showing practically only infant mortality at this stage, as opposed to lifetime reliability)

But fact of the matter is: even when entertaining the order you propose (Groups 4-3-2-5), Group 4 v1.5's would have a significantly higher failure rate than the majority of v1.0's (L17-28), which is also by far the largest shell, larger than any of the other v1 groups! Group 3 too, by the way, even if it's smaller in absolute size. So actually, you have yet another "anomaly" in your hands, and statistically strong at that.

At the end of the day, the only thing that can be said in support of your argument is that, within a single version (v1.0, v1.5, v2.0), there appears to be a weak monotonic decrease in failure rate when taking into account age-averaged shell bins. Would be interesting to know how much that breaks down when analyzing finer bins, but tntnt's graphs already give a good hint: strongly.

You went as far as to say that the 9% failure rate was probably coming from earlier v1.0's, as opposed to more recent, supposedly more reliable satellites. As is inequivocally visible in the graphs tntnt kindly provided (thanks for the complementary, finer-grained analysis by the way!), overall failure/deorbit rates have oscillated between 7-10% since the constellation acquired a certain maturity, and the law of large numbers started enabling meaningful statistics, around late 2021, when the constellation still was a quarter the size it is now.

Not only that, but they spiked to a local maximum (through early, though not infant, mortality) at the time of v1.5 launches in early-to-mid 2022 (yellow curve in first plot), reaching >10%, exactly contrary to what you're claiming! Time-normalizing for actual, as opposed to average, batch age would actually increase this effect, given the relatively constant slope of v1.0 reentries.
Finally, note the above curves do not yet take into account the approximate hundred of other v1 satellites undergoing disposal now. Without trying to tea-leaf-read what generation/launch batch they might belong to, which will become clear soon enough once they undergo reentry and are catalogued, the blue curve showing non-time-normalized overall failure rate (which I have never stopped discussing, as you strangely claim) will spike in the coming months to around 8.5% (+1.7%, since this is the approximate proportion of 100/6000 S/C in the near-future constellation), as I was ROM estimating from the beginning with far less sweat - very far away from your completely erroneous guesses.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: r1279 on 02/28/2024 04:30 pm
Should all of this lifetime analysis be moved to its own topic thread?
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: thespacecow on 02/29/2024 12:55 pm
Yes there is, you're not seeing it because you're not sorting the groups correctly. You're using the group order on JCM's page, but that order is not sorted by average satellite age of the group. The order for v1.0 and v2.0 are correct, but for v1.5, the correct order is this:

Starlink Group 4 V1.5 Launches: Average Age = 1.75 years
Starlink Group 3 V1.5 Launches: Average Age = 1.51 years
Starlink Group 2 V1.5 Launches: Average Age = 1.14 years
Starlink Group 5 V2.0F9-1 Launches (V1.5, Gen2 G5 shell): Average Age = 0.86 years

Once you redraw your bar chart by this order, there's clearly a monotonous decrease in normalized failure rate inside each version.

There's also a decrease in normalized failure rate between v1.0 and v1.5 overall, which is exactly what my previous calculation shows using the last group of v1.0 and v1.5, turns out whether it's cherry picked does not matter one bit.

The only anomaly is v2.0's normalized failure rate comparing to v1.0 and v1.5, but that can be easily explained by its short time on orbit so far and the fact that it is an entirely new satellite bus with new propellant.

I actually know how to do an analysis, while apparently you don't (or choose not to). I considered all the launch dates from the great Gunter Space Page: space.skyrocket.de Numbers I used for the time-normalization are actually quite close to what you propose, ironically, although not exactly the same.

So you're admitting I'm right about the ordering of v1.5 groups, while at the same time claiming I don't know how to do analysis, that's a funny way to admit you're wrong.

Quote
As I specified, there are satellites in Groups 2 and 3 that were launched at during two earlier and later launch campaigns, which I accounted for by averaging their dates out. Even weighing them more conservatively would not change the message from the plot, namely that there isn't a strict relationship between later versions of Starlink satellites and increased reliability, which you are admitting and trying to fudge out of by handwaving v2Mini "particularities" (even though they make up 32% of the current constellation and have just been launched, thus showing practically only infant mortality at this stage, as opposed to lifetime reliability)

Your explanation on how you messed up group 2 and 3's age is handwaving, my explanation for v2.0 particularities can be easily proven, because we know for a fact that initial batch of v2mini had problems due to the new technologies used, Elon Musk stated as much. And the normalized failure rate would punish groups that are in orbit for a short time, had satellite screened out early and have otherwise healthy members that can last a long time.

Quote
But fact of the matter is: even when entertaining the order you propose (Groups 4-3-2-5), Group 4 v1.5's would have a significantly higher failure rate than the majority of v1.0's (L17-28), which is also by far the largest shell, larger than any of the other v1 groups! Group 3 too, by the way, even if it's smaller in absolute size. So actually, you have yet another "anomaly" in your hands, and statistically strong at that.

That's not unusual at all, Group 4 is the initial v1.5 group, them having a somewhat higher failure rate than the last and most mature v1.0 group is not surprising.

The same dynamics exist in v2.0, this simply shows when they switch to new version the failure rate increases due to new hardware and technology introduced, but after some time they fixed the issues and failure rate decreases again.

In fact why are you comparing the first group of v1.5 to the last group of v1.0? That's what I call cherrypicking.

Quote
At the end of the day, the only thing that can be said in support of your argument is that, within a single version (v1.0, v1.5, v2.0), there appears to be a weak monotonic decrease in failure rate when taking into account age-averaged shell bins.

The decrease in failure rate is not weak at all, it's especially strong in v1.0 and v2.0 as shown by your own chart.

Quote
You went as far as to say that the 9% failure rate was probably coming from earlier v1.0's, as opposed to more recent, supposedly more reliable satellites. As is inequivocally visible in the graphs tntnt kindly provided (thanks for the complementary, finer-grained analysis by the way!), overall failure/deorbit rates have oscillated between 7-10% since the constellation acquired a certain maturity, and the law of large numbers started enabling meaningful statistics, around late 2021, when the constellation still was a quarter the size it is now.

Again, the overall failure rate is meaningless, as I have proven before. You could have v1.5 and v2.0 all being perfect and 100% reliability, and still have the same overall failure rate due to failures in v1.0.

Quote
Not only that, but they spiked to a local maximum (through early, though not infant, mortality) at the time of v1.5 launches in early-to-mid 2022 (yellow curve in first plot), reaching >10%, exactly contrary to what you're claiming! Time-normalizing for actual, as opposed to average, batch age would actually increase this effect, given the relatively constant slope of v1.0 reentries.

Initial v1.5 has higher failure rate than the mature v1.0's, that's already explained above and does not change the fact that SpaceX is steadily improving the reliability of the satellites.

Quote
Finally, note the above curves do not yet take into account the approximate hundred of other v1 satellites undergoing disposal now. Without trying to tea-leaf-read what generation/launch batch they might belong to, which will become clear soon enough once they undergo reentry and are catalogued, the blue curve showing non-time-normalized overall failure rate (which I have never stopped discussing, as you strangely claim) will spike in the coming months to around 8.5% (+1.7%, since this is the approximate proportion of 100/6000 S/C in the near-future constellation), as I was ROM estimating from the beginning with far less sweat - very far away from your completely erroneous guesses.

Huh? If these 100 satellites belong to v1.0, then the spike in overall failure rate would actually support my claim that the high overall failure rate is due to v1.0s, not sure why you're celebrating this.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: cpushack on 02/29/2024 06:08 pm
Should all of this lifetime analysis be moved to its own topic thread?

Yes because it seems to have spiraled into "I'm right and your wrong", and reddit quality squabbling then anything overly useful.

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: dondar on 02/29/2024 08:42 pm
lifetime failure rate is useful only in the case of stable design mass produced item which is used in serial fusion. This obviously is not the case for Starlink constellation(s). More of it the need to calculate is not clear. what is the point of it? Financial costs? they are irrelevant because the whole process is made to be cheap and massive. 

Beside all other factors they really need to expand their bandwidth capacity within US quickly which translates in the premature retirement of very many "retarded" sats being substituted for quite limited time by "newer" versions, which also are being retired because they learn a lot still.

The relevant factor to look for is the "garbage ratio", i.e. the number of failed sats stranded on orbit. There are around 50 of them.  (not all sats on strange orbits are dead, basically you need to wait for the group retirement and to look for the stragglers left behind). Considering current size of the constellation it is  ~1%, more than a half of them are of the first generation which are still orbiting.
The most important question is the time to retire, i.e. the time needed for a dead sat to decay.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/29/2024 11:58 pm
Should all of this lifetime analysis be moved to its own topic thread?

Yes because it seems to have spiraled into "I'm right and your wrong", and reddit quality squabbling then anything overly useful.

It's a general thread, but a new splinter thread could be useful if anyone feels the need on any thread! I'd be far more interested if people didn't act like someone has slapped them in the face because they dared to disagree with them. Some people are incapable of that sadly. But ironically, while some are sighing, some have the popcorn out; there's at least some actual content in the arguments, as opposed to a Jim-style "wrong" and that's it ;)
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/07/2024 06:19 am
https://twitter.com/michaelnicollsx/status/1765564952083935672

Quote
This is a good summary of our efforts to increase speeds and reduce latency on the @Starlink network.  A ton more work to do to improve the service and make it accessible to as many people as possible.

https://www.pcmag.com/articles/2024-starlink-speed-tests-spacex-satellite-internet

Quote
2024 Starlink Tests: SpaceX's Satellite Internet Keeps Getting Better
I've been living with Starlink for two years: Improved upload speeds, lower latency, and the same pricing as last year make it a better deal than ever.

By Brian Westover
March 6, 2024
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: r1279 on 03/08/2024 10:18 pm
The Starlink team has been focused on improving network performance with the goal of < 20ms latency.
Over the past month, we have meaningfully reduced median and worst-case latency for users around the world

PDF: https://api.starlink.com/public-files/StarlinkLatency.pdf

https://twitter.com/Starlink/status/1766179308887028005

Quote
Over the past month, we have meaningfully reduced median and worst-case latency for users around the
world. In the United States alone, we reduced median latency by more than 30%, from 48.5ms to 33ms
during hours of peak usage. Worst-case peak hour latency (p99) has dropped by over 60%, from over
150ms to less than 65ms. Outside of the United States, we have also reduced median latency by up to
25% and worst-case latencies by up to 35%
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: king1999 on 03/09/2024 12:28 am
The Starlink team has been focused on improving network performance with the goal of < 20ms latency.
Over the past month, we have meaningfully reduced median and worst-case latency for users around the world

PDF: https://api.starlink.com/public-files/StarlinkLatency.pdf
From the same report, Starlink now has 2.6M+ customers, up from 2.2M+ in December. ~400k new customers in less than three months!

Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/10/2024 08:46 am
Thanks for the graph Eric!

https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1766761315706835038

Quote
SpaceX says Starlink has "2.6M+ customers" as of March 2024 - +300k in the last 11 weeks and +1.1M subs in the last 44 weeks! Growth has been extremely steady for >2 years, making extrapolation extra easy. If that pace remains steady, Starlink may have >3.5M subs by end of 2024
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: eeergo on 03/17/2024 11:36 pm
So you're admitting I'm right about the ordering of v1.5 groups, while at the same time claiming I don't know how to do analysis, that's a funny way to admit you're wrong.
Jim'ming it up a tad: No. See the first attached histogram. Note I used your values for average lifetimes for the sake of argument.
Quote
That's not unusual at all, Group 4 is the initial v1.5 group, them having a somewhat higher failure rate than the last and most mature v1.0 group is not surprising. The same dynamics exist in v2.0, this simply shows when they switch to new version the failure rate increases due to new hardware and technology introduced, but after some time they fixed the issues and failure rate decreases again. In fact why are you comparing the first group of v1.5 to the last group of v1.0? That's what I call cherrypicking.
Group 4 (first v1.5 group launched massively and sequentially) contains 1637 S/C, while the "last and most mature v1.0 group" is less than half as large - meaning statistics should be much stronger for the former than for the latter.
 
Moreover, the last v1.0 group is about twice as old as Group 4's average age, but well within the nominal 5-year service life - meaning eventual one-off non-systemic problems were wed out earlier, and the age normalization is pushing the true rate down (from 7% absolute to 2.5% weighted, while Group 4 is 5.4% absolute to 3% weighted).

Furthermore, Group 4 S/C were all launched within a 13-month period throughout 2022 and the end of 2021, while the last v1.0 group launched entirely within 4 months of 2021. Meaning a much wider dispersion in lifetimes that allows the weighted failure rates to gloss over eventual failures in young S/C. Would have to correlate failures to actual launch date, which is beyond the scope of what I have time to work on. Maybe you can try it though, we have only seen allegedly "representative approximations" from you so far.

So Group 4 is 2x as statistically significant, half the age, and 3x as widely distributed in on-orbit life, as the last v1.0 group (L17+)... and yet it it has 30% higher average-lifetime-weighted failure rates!

Quote
The decrease in failure rate is not weak at all, it's especially strong in v1.0 and v2.0 as shown by your own chart.
[...]
Again, the overall failure rate is meaningless, as I have proven before. You could have v1.5 and v2.0 all being perfect and 100% reliability, and still have the same overall failure rate due to failures in v1.0.
[...]
Initial v1.5 has higher failure rate than the mature v1.0's, that's already explained above and does not change the fact that SpaceX is steadily improving the reliability of the satellites.

See, at the end of the day, you're claiming failure rates decrease within each Starlink generation, and that each successive generation achieves a lower failure rate than the preceding one at the equivalent stage of deployment. In other words: first launches of each generation can be faulty because of new equipment or whatever (not really buying v2.0s will have been as faulty as early v1.0s, especially when the latter are 3x the lifetime as the former, but let's move on), while latter more mature ones will exhibit gradually improving failure rates with each passing generation.

That is already untrue when considering the second generational batch of v1.5's (Group 5) and that of v2.0's (Group 7).
But that also ignores normalization, again. You will agree with me that whenever you have a certain failure rate in a fully-built shell, good or bad as it may be, its statistical significance will necessarily be larger when the subgroup has a larger size. This is a general, agnostic statement: a fully-populated shell will be more representative of a certain generation's behavior than one only occupied by a handful of S/C.
 
In other words: you not only need to normalize by lifetime, but also by the relative proportion a certain Group makes up in the whole generation, as represented in the second attached histogram. Of course, here the values are not straight failure rates, but the failure rate relative to the respective generation's size. Results are qualitatively similar if you normalize by total constellation numbers instead.

As you can see, the first v1.0 and v1.5 groups are then 1/3rd of the normalized failure rate per spacecraft as the first v2.0 Group 6... showing a stable or increased in failure proportion with generation. That's the first group, so we know you have an ad-hoc explanation for those which is certainly not cherry-picking. Yet the second v1.0 group, is actually over v1.0's first group... and the last, mature v1.5 Group 5 is higher than the two preceding Groups 2-3. But the second v2.0 Group 7 is also relatively faultier in this chart than any of the "mature" v1.5s! We're gonna need more special cases...

Quote
Huh? If these 100 satellites belong to v1.0, then the spike in overall failure rate would actually support my claim that the high overall failure rate is due to v1.0s, not sure why you're celebrating this.

I was referring to the fact the overall failure rate I estimated, even if you claim it's not relevant, was consistent with my prior estimates.
Title: Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/18/2024 05:59 am
So you're admitting I'm right about the ordering of v1.5 groups, while at the same time claiming I don't know how to do analysis, that's a funny way to admit you're wrong.
Jim'ming it up a tad: No. See the first attached histogram. Note I used your values for average lifetimes for the sake of argument.
Quote
That's not unusual at all, Group 4 is the initial v1.5 group, them having a somewhat higher failure rate than the last and most mature v1.0 group is not surprising. The same dynamics exist in v2.0, this simply shows when they switch to new version the failure rate increases due to new hardware and technology introduced, but after some time they fixed the issues and failure rate decreases again. In fact why are you comparing the first group of v1.5 to the last group of v1.0? That's what I call cherrypicking.
Group 4 (first v1.5 group launched massively and sequentially) contains 1637 S/C, while the "last and most mature v1.0 group" is less than half as large - meaning statistics should be much stronger for the former than for the latter.
 
Moreover, the last v1.0 group is about twice as old as Group 4's average age, but well within the nominal 5-year service life - meaning eventual one-off non-systemic problems were wed out earlier, and the age normalization is pushing the true rate down (from 7% absolute to 2.5% weighted, while Group 4 is 5.4% absolute to 3% weighted).

Furthermore, Group 4 S/C were all launched within a 13-month period throughout 2022 and the end of 2021, while the last v1.0 group launched entirely within 4 months of 2021. Meaning a much wider dispersion in lifetimes that allows the weighted failure rates to gloss over eventual failures in young S/C. Would have to correlate failures to actual launch date, which is beyond the scope of what I have time to work on. Maybe you can try it though, we have only seen allegedly "representative approximations" from you so far.

So Group 4 is 2x as statistically significant, half the age, and 3x as widely distributed in on-orbit life, as the last v1.0 group (L17+)... and yet it it has 30% higher average-lifetime-weighted failure rates!

Quote
The decrease in failure rate is not weak at all, it's especially strong in v1.0 and v2.0 as shown by your own chart.
[...]
Again, the overall failure rate is meaningless, as I have proven before. You could have v1.5 and v2.0 all being perfect and 100% reliability, and still have the same overall failure rate due to failures in v1.0.
[...]
Initial v1.5 has higher failure rate than the mature v1.0's, that's already explained above and does not change the fact that SpaceX is steadily improving the reliability of the satellites.

See, at the end of the day, you're claiming failure rates decrease within each Starlink generation, and that each successive generation achieves a lower failure rate than the preceding one at the equivalent stage of deployment. In other words: first launches of each generation can be faulty because of new equipment or whatever (not really buying v2.0s will have been as faulty as early v1.0s, especially when the latter are 3x the lifetime as the former, but let's move on), while latter more mature ones will exhibit gradually improving failure rates with each passing generation.

That is already untrue when considering the second generational batch of v1.5's (Group 5) and that of v2.0's (Group 7).
But that also ignores normalization, again. You will agree with me that whenever you have a certain failure rate in a fully-built shell, good or bad as it may be, its statistical significance will necessarily be larger when the subgroup has a larger size. This is a general, agnostic statement: a fully-populated shell will be more representative of a certain generation's behavior than one only occupied by a handful of S/C.
 
In other words: you not only need to normalize by lifetime, but also by the relative proportion a certain Group makes up in the whole generation, as represented in the second attached histogram. Of course, here the values are not straight failure rates, but the failure rate relative to the respective generation's size. Results are qualitatively similar if you normalize by total constellation numbers instead.

As you can see, the first v1.0 and v1.5 groups are then 1/3rd of the normalized failure rate per spacecraft as the first v2.0 Group 6... showing a stable or increased in failure proportion with generation. That's the first group, so we know you have an ad-hoc explanation for those which is certainly not cherry-picking. Yet the second v1.0 group, is actually over v1.0's first group... and the last, mature v1.5 Group 5 is higher than the two preceding Groups 2-3. But the second v2.0 Group 7 is also relatively faultier in this chart than any of the "mature" v1.5s! We're gonna need more special cases...

Quote
Huh? If these 100 satellites belong to v1.0, then the spike in overall failure rate would actually support my claim that the high overall failure rate is due to v1.0s, not sure why you're celebrating this.

I was referring to the fact the overall failure rate I estimated, even if you claim it's not relevant, was consistent with my prior estimates.

Long story short - they’re pulling in $3B+ Starlink revenue a year, soon to be $5- $6B.

Who cares about the failure rate as long as it’s profitable?