Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2

[Robotbeat]

ISLs don't just allow increase in revenue but decrease in costs as you don't need as many ground stations or interconnection fees.

But I do suspect significant increase in revenue. With ISLs, you can now serve customers far away from any ground stations.

Especially since their primary customer wants truly global coverage, and putting together that ground station network would be a LOT of work.

Their primary customer is consumers and businesses. The US govt will be a minority of Starlink business, even if they appear to be somewhat of an early anchor customer.

I know it’s hard to imagine, but consumers and businesses have a LOT more money to spend on this than the US DoD does. The DoD has like a couple billion at most to spend on stuff like Starlink. Comcast’s revenue was >$100 billion last year.

Those consumers and businesses are clustered in cities where Starlink's value proposition is a lot lower.  Don't overestimate how much of Comcast's business they're going to capture in the next decade.

I’m not. Just pointing out the scale of consumer and business spending is FAR greater than military spending. That’s the real nut.

Keep in mind Comcast is just one business among several... there’s AT&T (market cap $209B), Verizon (market cap $235B), and foreign telecoms. Starlink can compete with all of them (altho at first only with their fixed, non-mobile services) to the extent that their constellation has enough capacity. Maybe they can get 5-10% in cities, but a lot more in rural areas. And not just in the US but globally.

The US military’s telecoms budget is small potatoes and does not drive SpaceX/Starlink’s valuation except as a risk-reducing anchor customer.

Oh absolutely.

I see the Military as the initial customer to get the network to its full strength. Once that gets set up I see the military keeping the same small footprint, but the majority of the service will be used as an invisible backbone for low latency applications

Disagree. Low latency services is still a small part of their total revenue. Backbone companies are MUCH smaller than you’d think. Cogent Communications, one of the biggest internet backbone providers, has a market cap of just $4 billion, 50 times smaller than Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T. Even a smaller regional player like Cox communications has a market cap 5 times that size. Consumers are where the real money is.

[wannamoonbase]

I think the laser ISL are just waiting for them to reach the performance, price, and manufacturability points they want on that assembly.  They'll need to make thousands of them a year.

I’d still expect to see some test satellites included in one or more of the launches.  Perhaps they have done this and not said anything.  But typically they do let the public know the outlines of what they are doing.

Cost, size and weight are important but maybe they haven’t gotten the tech to work yet.   It’s a very difficult problem.

However, it’s critical to having a global footprint and coverage over oceans. 

I’m not worried about it at this point, it will come along in some future version.

[Robotbeat]

Starlink has been more under-wraps than most SpaceX activities.

[wannamoonbase]

Starlink has been more under-wraps than most SpaceX activities.

LOL, I appreciate the tease. 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Initial operational state milestone has been stated as being having 1400 operational sats. Current is ~540 to 600 depending on how you count the V0.9 sats and all those that have been deactivated it could be a few less than 540. In order to get to 1400 at 2 launches a month average will take ~8 months or somewhere around April 2021. So delaying ILS until later such as beginning of 2021 when Beta test is finishing up and has collected significant amounts of data is not that unrealistic. Meaning waiting 6 more months before testing first ILS V0.9 implementation on a batch of 60 that comprises completely a couple of close neighboring rings is a likely case. This is likely to include as many as 4 launches of this ILS V0.9 version while working on an upgraded better performing version. Followed in a couple of months with possible upgraded ILS V1.0 and thereafter a lot more of that version until something better is designed with less cost and more capability.

Such that by Mid 2021 there could be as many as 700 ILS capable sats in a sat constellation of 1700 sats. By EOY that would be 1400 ILS capable sats in a constellation of 2400 sats. Global sat link comm would be available 24/7 with capability to connect direct back to a US Gateway from anywhere in the world.

NOTE the US DOD communication evaluation study ends in 2022.

[vsatman]

ILS is only needed for services in the seas and oceans. On land, most countries still require gateways to control traffic by local police. The question is what is the assessment of the telecom market of sea and air transportation (IFC - In Flight Communication).

//The global maritime satellite communication market size is expected to grow from USD 2.3 billion in 2020 to USD 3.2 billion by 2025, at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 7.1% during the forecast period. Escalating need for enriched data communication to improve operation efficiency, on-board security and surveillance, and employee/passenger welfare in the maritime industry is driving the market. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/maritime-satellite-communication-market-113822978.html

[OTV Booster]

Integrating ISL into a non ISL constellation has been bugging me. I think I've got a seed idea for a transition that adds the capability while still using the older sats.


The core idea is to salt ISL sats throughout the existing constellation such that there are always at least two visible to each ground station at all times. When a ground station needs to forward data that will need more than one hop it will preferentially use an ISL sat. The ISL sats in turn will be dedicated to ISL and ground stations with no end user access, but will still have the capability.


As the number of ISL sats increases, the cross link bandwidth demands on any one sat decreases and end user connections become feasible.


An exception to the early ISL sats not doing end user service would be over water where end user bandwidth will not be great while that market is developing. Another exception might be to edge end user service a bit further south (in the northern hemisphere).


A new service area, Europe for example, would still need a ground station(s) early in the transition but as the number of ISL sats increases a ground station for a new service area would not be needed unless local regulatory requirements demand it. Likewise, preexisting ground stations would need to stick around only as long as non ISL bandwidth, cable head needs and hitting FCC milestones dictate.


Phil

[RedLineTrain]

On July 29 and 30, SpaceX had conference calls with Commissioner Carr and folks at the FCC International Bureau.  SpaceX's ex-parte notice of the calls contains some interesting information (see Slide 3).

*SpaceX has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to date
*Manufacturing satellites at a rate of 120 per month
*Invested over $70 million developing and producing thousands of user terminals
*Currently manufacturing user terminals at rate of thousands per month
*High-rate manufacturing of user terminals soon
*Beta service started with hundreds of testers

[mdee]

ISLs don't just allow increase in revenue but decrease in costs as you don't need as many ground stations or interconnection fees.

But I do suspect significant increase in revenue. With ISLs, you can now serve customers far away from any ground stations.

Especially since their primary customer wants truly global coverage, and putting together that ground station network would be a LOT of work.

Their primary customer is consumers and businesses. The US govt will be a minority of Starlink business, even if they appear to be somewhat of an early anchor customer.

I know it’s hard to imagine, but consumers and businesses have a LOT more money to spend on this than the US DoD does. The DoD has like a couple billion at most to spend on stuff like Starlink. Comcast’s revenue was >$100 billion last year.

Those consumers and businesses are clustered in cities where Starlink's value proposition is a lot lower.  Don't overestimate how much of Comcast's business they're going to capture in the next decade.

I’m not. Just pointing out the scale of consumer and business spending is FAR greater than military spending. That’s the real nut.

Keep in mind Comcast is just one business among several... there’s AT&T (market cap $209B), Verizon (market cap $235B), and foreign telecoms. Starlink can compete with all of them (altho at first only with their fixed, non-mobile services) to the extent that their constellation has enough capacity. Maybe they can get 5-10% in cities, but a lot more in rural areas. And not just in the US but globally.

The US military’s telecoms budget is small potatoes and does not drive SpaceX/Starlink’s valuation except as a risk-reducing anchor customer.

Oh absolutely.

I see the Military as the initial customer to get the network to its full strength. Once that gets set up I see the military keeping the same small footprint, but the majority of the service will be used as an invisible backbone for low latency applications

Disagree. Low latency services is still a small part of their total revenue. Backbone companies are MUCH smaller than you’d think. Cogent Communications, one of the biggest internet backbone providers, has a market cap of just $4 billion, 50 times smaller than Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T. Even a smaller regional player like Cox communications has a market cap 5 times that size. Consumers are where the real money is.

I totally agree with you, initially the first customer must be the army!.

If we look at the majority of past technologies, the army first tested it before it was released to the public.

Let's see if the new generation of starlink will not affect the vision of astronomers.

[ChrisWilson68]

If we look at the majority of past technologies, the army first tested it before it was released to the public.

I don't think that's true at all.  Some technologies were first used by the military, but the vast majority of technologies I can think of were not.

[wannamoonbase]

If we look at the majority of past technologies, the army first tested it before it was released to the public.

I don't think that's true at all.  Some technologies were first used by the military, but the vast majority of technologies I can think of were not.

Agreed, especially in the recent tech age.  The venture capital system in the US is ahead of DOD on alot of fronts.

[Krossbolt]

Starlink got some bad press from the Australian Broadcasting Commission today in their online news -

Why Elon Musk's satellite swarm is an accident waiting to happen

Smaller, cheaper satellites are flooding the most popular orbit, increasing the likelihood of an accident that could trigger a catastrophe in space and calamity back on Earth.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-07/spacex-amazon-satellites-scramble-for-space-around-earth/12512978?nw=0

I'm pretty annoyed at the author's one sided write up and using obviously an astronomer's viewpoint who obviously is not sympathetic to Starlink. The article is not balanced in that there is no mention of the satellites' anti collision systems and deorbit capabilities. I've sent a complaint to the ABC Online editor.

[OTV Booster]

If we look at the majority of past technologies, the army first tested it before it was released to the public.

I don't think that's true at all.  Some technologies were first used by the military, but the vast majority of technologies I can think of were not.

There are a lot of little invisible bits of tech (mostly electronics)buried in our beloved stuff that either started with the military or matured there. A trend that started post WW2. Phased array, spread spectrum, GPS, radar, even computers and overhead valve V engines.


The military tech itself usually isn't what we use but is more of an enabler.


I'm not sure an inventory of 'stuff' looking for military bits has ever been rigorously done. The results would be interesting.


Phil

[ChrisWilson68]

If we look at the majority of past technologies, the army first tested it before it was released to the public.

I don't think that's true at all.  Some technologies were first used by the military, but the vast majority of technologies I can think of were not.

There are a lot of little invisible bits of tech (mostly electronics)buried in our beloved stuff that either started with the military or matured there. A trend that started post WW2. Phased array, spread spectrum, GPS, radar, even computers and overhead valve V engines.

There is even more tech that was developed by the private sector for the private sector. such as the printing press with moveable type, the steam engine, railroads, automobiles, the telegraph, the incandescent light bulb, the telephone, television, the transistor, the laser, the microprocessor, and millions of other innovations that pervade our world today.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1291863550504443905

lSpaceX told the FCC in a late July presentation that the company’s Starlink unit is “now building 120 satellites per month” and has “invested over $70 million developing and producing thousands of consumer user terminals per month.”

[Lar]

If we look at the majority of past technologies, the army first tested it before it was released to the public.

I don't think that's true at all.  Some technologies were first used by the military, but the vast majority of technologies I can think of were not.

Agreed, especially in the recent tech age.  The venture capital system in the US is ahead of DOD on alot of fronts.

Not to go too far off topic, but I think DARPA knows this and that's why they structure some of their stuff the way they do... prizes and incentives for inventors and scrappy entepreneurial companies to give it a go.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/cosmos4u/status/1292661826866610177

Only one data point but from a very experienced observer: the 1st #Starlink of the VisorSat type (as https://t.co/seZL1j7zdT explains) is on station now - and dimmer by several magnitudes: http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2020/0044.html. Should mean that all future Starlinks become invisible to the eye.

[thirtyone]

https://twitter.com/cosmos4u/status/1292661826866610177

Only one data point but from a very experienced observer: the 1st #Starlink of the VisorSat type (as https://t.co/seZL1j7zdT explains) is on station now - and dimmer by several magnitudes: http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2020/0044.html. Should mean that all future Starlinks become invisible to the eye.

Let's hope some more measurements come out soon - promising, but still a very preliminary observation. Another experienced observer (in that satobs thread) posted another observation set on the same day saying he could see it, but I'm not experienced enough to interpret the data beyond knowing it was visible by a telescope setup:
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2020/0066.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2020/0065.html

[meberbs]

A star of 6.7 magnitude was also visible in the observation. Putting the satellite right at the edge of human eyesight.

It said the satellite was not seen even with binoculars when the 6.7 magnitude star was seen. From this information, you can only say what the satellite was dimmer than, not what it's actual brightness was. Being dimmer than 7 magnitude is not the "edge" of human eyesight from anything I have heard, it is solidly below human eyesight.

Thirtyone posted a link mentioning other observations, but I don't know how to parse meaningful info from that set of data.

[thirtyone]

A star of 6.7 magnitude was also visible in the observation. Putting the satellite right at the edge of human eyesight.

It said the satellite was not seen even with binoculars when the 6.7 magnitude star was seen. From this information, you can only say what the satellite was dimmer than, not what it's actual brightness was. Being dimmer than 7 magnitude is not the "edge" of human eyesight from anything I have heard, it is solidly below human eyesight.

Thirtyone posted a link mentioning other observations, but I don't know how to parse meaningful info from that set of data.

I'm no expert in this area, but I went through the satobs guide to their standard measurement set. http://www.satobs.org/position/IODformat.html. There simply isn't magnitude data in these sets - I think it's a measure of whether or not someone with a good telescope could spot all of these objects, and where in the sky they could be spotted. The only visual data available was that visorsat was visible. You could, potentially, guess what the visibility threshold for that particular observer's setup may have been based on other spotted or not spotted objects, especially given that it seems that night was particularly clear on one dataset (intermittent cloud cover I'd imagine could give misleading measurements).