Author Topic: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2  (Read 1272974 times)

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #320 on: 09/12/2019 08:27 am »
When do you think they will transition to including the inter-satellite links?

If they don't now with the next launch I think they will build a fully operational constellation before they introduce them. Sats with laser links will be bigger and heavier, reducing the number of sats per Falcon launch.

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5103
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3553
  • Likes Given: 6004
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #321 on: 09/12/2019 06:37 pm »
Without lateral coms each bird in the constellation will only act as an aggregation point for the users within its reception area and will need to downlink to a ground station for further transmission. This has been discussed but I’m not sure there been discussion of the implications.

In his FCC application for the new architecture Elon seems to be positioning as an alternative com for disasters and is focusing on the southern US. This sucks as a full business model but makes sense as a wedge to justify the new plan. Ok, he has a deadline to get something up and running or he doesn’t get the license. Is there any FCC criteria for minimum usability or is it just some number of sats that can transmit/receive?

I’m trying to figure out a viable business model without lateral coms and am drawing a blank. Can’t claim low latency. Can’t claim to serve sparsely populated areas unless they have a local ground station which means there has to be a backbone in place somewhere in the area. This makes the constellation a glorified cell tower.

The only thing I can come up with is hitting FCC numbers to secure the license and an R&D platform for the real constellation. Even if he hits the FCC numbers with a ‘minimally viable system’ and gets the license, without lateral coms he doesn’t have a product to sell.

So, I’ve been trying to figure out how the system currently in progress could evolve into a real system and that leads me to a question. Is it possible to salt some minimum number of sats WITH lateral coms into a higher orbit and make it work?

What I picture is something like this. Customer connects through a non-lateral sat which in turn connects to a ground station. The ground station connects to a lateral type sat which in turn relays through other lat sats and eventually to a ground station which either hits copper or a non-lat sat for the last mile. Latency would not be the absolute best but ok for most uses. More lat-sats would enter the system over time as would customer connect sats with lateral capability.

The lat sats could evolve into something different than the customer sats, aggregating traffic like the local ground stations which would eventually become redundant.  If placed on one of the higher orbits they would be positioned To do lateral coms to other far off lat sats keeping hops to a minimum and latency down. And they would do high volume downlink to data centers.

The down side is two different sat designs. As a counter, the customer connect sats would be relatively simple and inexpensive. The lateral com sats would be larger, heavier, more power hungry and more expensive, but fewer in number. Being on higher orbit they’d stick around longer. The most important plus this gives is an evolutionary path from what seems to me to be a lame system without ditching the early lame sats.


What alternatives can we come up with?


Phil






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

Offline Mandella

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 799
  • Likes Given: 2592
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #322 on: 09/12/2019 07:04 pm »
Without lateral coms each bird in the constellation will only act as an aggregation point for the users within its reception area and will need to downlink to a ground station for further transmission. This has been discussed but I’m not sure there been discussion of the implications.

In his FCC application for the new architecture Elon seems to be positioning as an alternative com for disasters and is focusing on the southern US. This sucks as a full business model but makes sense as a wedge to justify the new plan. Ok, he has a deadline to get something up and running or he doesn’t get the license. Is there any FCC criteria for minimum usability or is it just some number of sats that can transmit/receive?

I’m trying to figure out a viable business model without lateral coms and am drawing a blank. Can’t claim low latency. Can’t claim to serve sparsely populated areas unless they have a local ground station which means there has to be a backbone in place somewhere in the area. This makes the constellation a glorified cell tower.

The only thing I can come up with is hitting FCC numbers to secure the license and an R&D platform for the real constellation. Even if he hits the FCC numbers with a ‘minimally viable system’ and gets the license, without lateral coms he doesn’t have a product to sell.

So, I’ve been trying to figure out how the system currently in progress could evolve into a real system and that leads me to a question. Is it possible to salt some minimum number of sats WITH lateral coms into a higher orbit and make it work?

What I picture is something like this. Customer connects through a non-lateral sat which in turn connects to a ground station. The ground station connects to a lateral type sat which in turn relays through other lat sats and eventually to a ground station which either hits copper or a non-lat sat for the last mile. Latency would not be the absolute best but ok for most uses. More lat-sats would enter the system over time as would customer connect sats with lateral capability.

The lat sats could evolve into something different than the customer sats, aggregating traffic like the local ground stations which would eventually become redundant.  If placed on one of the higher orbits they would be positioned To do lateral coms to other far off lat sats keeping hops to a minimum and latency down. And they would do high volume downlink to data centers.

The down side is two different sat designs. As a counter, the customer connect sats would be relatively simple and inexpensive. The lateral com sats would be larger, heavier, more power hungry and more expensive, but fewer in number. Being on higher orbit they’d stick around longer. The most important plus this gives is an evolutionary path from what seems to me to be a lame system without ditching the early lame sats.


What alternatives can we come up with?


Phil

The latency will still be quite low without lateral comms, at least regionally, and it won't be worse than ground internet for transoceanic distances. The idea as I understand it is that every satellite will be in reach of a ground station if it is near land, and that ground station links the satellite into terrestrial internet. So still far far better latency than bouncing everything off GEO.

What you lose without the interlink is reaching remote areas far from a ground station, most particularly mid ocean. Plus you lose the possibly ultra low latency from transoceanic communications.

It could still be quite a viable competitor to existing GEO satellite dishes in rural areas though, depending on pricing and bandwidth caps.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #323 on: 09/12/2019 08:53 pm »
I'm going to talk to someone in Valdez about sat coverage in a few days. They're about 61N with a big honkin range of mountains to the south that limits geo availability. Has anyone created any sort of table to let people know about when Starlink sats might be available at different latitudes and antenna elevations? I've been too lazy to figure out how high the hills are from town when I'll just be able to measure them shortly. I know it's still guesswork with their deployment plans changing.
I'm at 56N, so this is interesting to me.
The orbital inclination is 53 degrees.
If they are deployed at 550km, three degrees (~300km) north only puts them at around 60 degrees from the horizon, so I probably have coverage.

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

Any significant obstruction at all to the south is going to dramatically cut your likelyhood of continuous coverage..

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5103
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3553
  • Likes Given: 6004
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #324 on: 09/12/2019 10:28 pm »
Without lateral coms each bird in the constellation will only act as an aggregation point for the users within its reception area and will need to downlink to a ground station for further transmission. This has been discussed but I’m not sure there been discussion of the implications.

In his FCC application for the new architecture Elon seems to be positioning as an alternative com for disasters and is focusing on the southern US. This sucks as a full business model but makes sense as a wedge to justify the new plan. Ok, he has a deadline to get something up and running or he doesn’t get the license. Is there any FCC criteria for minimum usability or is it just some number of sats that can transmit/receive?

I’m trying to figure out a viable business model without lateral coms and am drawing a blank. Can’t claim low latency. Can’t claim to serve sparsely populated areas unless they have a local ground station which means there has to be a backbone in place somewhere in the area. This makes the constellation a glorified cell tower.

The only thing I can come up with is hitting FCC numbers to secure the license and an R&D platform for the real constellation. Even if he hits the FCC numbers with a ‘minimally viable system’ and gets the license, without lateral coms he doesn’t have a product to sell.

So, I’ve been trying to figure out how the system currently in progress could evolve into a real system and that leads me to a question. Is it possible to salt some minimum number of sats WITH lateral coms into a higher orbit and make it work?

What I picture is something like this. Customer connects through a non-lateral sat which in turn connects to a ground station. The ground station connects to a lateral type sat which in turn relays through other lat sats and eventually to a ground station which either hits copper or a non-lat sat for the last mile. Latency would not be the absolute best but ok for most uses. More lat-sats would enter the system over time as would customer connect sats with lateral capability.

The lat sats could evolve into something different than the customer sats, aggregating traffic like the local ground stations which would eventually become redundant.  If placed on one of the higher orbits they would be positioned To do lateral coms to other far off lat sats keeping hops to a minimum and latency down. And they would do high volume downlink to data centers.

The down side is two different sat designs. As a counter, the customer connect sats would be relatively simple and inexpensive. The lateral com sats would be larger, heavier, more power hungry and more expensive, but fewer in number. Being on higher orbit they’d stick around longer. The most important plus this gives is an evolutionary path from what seems to me to be a lame system without ditching the early lame sats.


What alternatives can we come up with?


Phil

The latency will still be quite low without lateral comms, at least regionally, and it won't be worse than ground internet for transoceanic distances. The idea as I understand it is that every satellite will be in reach of a ground station if it is near land, and that ground station links the satellite into terrestrial internet. So still far far better latency than bouncing everything off GEO.

What you lose without the interlink is reaching remote areas far from a ground station, most particularly mid ocean. Plus you lose the possibly ultra low latency from transoceanic communications.

It could still be quite a viable competitor to existing GEO satellite dishes in rural areas though, depending on pricing and bandwidth caps.

Just about anything is better than bouncing to GEO.

So all it will do at first is cover the last mile, er last ~1000km. With an unknown cost for customer hardware, but guesses of around $200 or more, it doesn’t sound compelling unless the rates are great. Of course everybody seems to want to ditch their current provider so there is some hope.

IIRC The pics of ground stations show dish antennas. This would have to move to phased array for production units I expect. What would the footprint of a ground station be? I’m trying to figure out the economics of this. What you describe seems technically sound but I’m skeptical on the business case. It is admittedly an interim solution.

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

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

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

Offline ninjaneer

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #325 on: 09/12/2019 11:44 pm »
So all it will do at first is cover the last mile, er last ~1000km. With an unknown cost for customer hardware, but guesses of around $200 or more, it doesn’t sound compelling unless the rates are great. Of course everybody seems to want to ditch their current provider so there is some hope.

IIRC The pics of ground stations show dish antennas. This would have to move to phased array for production units I expect. What would the footprint of a ground station be? I’m trying to figure out the economics of this. What you describe seems technically sound but I’m skeptical on the business case. It is admittedly an interim solution.

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

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

Nobody with terrestrial internet is going to jump unless they're a superfan with deep pockets.  I kind of feel bad for all the people who overhyped themselves.  I'm patiently waiting, though.

Offline freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Liked: 1197
  • Likes Given: 3417
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #326 on: 09/13/2019 12:48 am »
Without lateral coms each bird in the constellation will only act as an aggregation point for the users within its reception area and will need to downlink to a ground station for further transmission. This has been discussed but I’m not sure there been discussion of the implications.

In his FCC application for the new architecture Elon seems to be positioning as an alternative com for disasters and is focusing on the southern US. This sucks as a full business model but makes sense as a wedge to justify the new plan. Ok, he has a deadline to get something up and running or he doesn’t get the license. Is there any FCC criteria for minimum usability or is it just some number of sats that can transmit/receive?

I’m trying to figure out a viable business model without lateral coms and am drawing a blank. Can’t claim low latency. Can’t claim to serve sparsely populated areas unless they have a local ground station which means there has to be a backbone in place somewhere in the area. This makes the constellation a glorified cell tower.

The only thing I can come up with is hitting FCC numbers ...

...

What alternatives can we come up with?



Yes, the initial, no interlinks sats mean that latency across the Atlantic or Pacific is no better than the routes in use today.

Yes, showing a working system to potential customers, investors and the Federal regulators is highly important, even if it is a loss leader.   

But, you have mis-estimate the utility of large swaths of North America being able to get high speed internet based upon the minimal constellation.  It will only take a minimum of 3 ground stations to serve all of the US (depending on usage).   There are many "fly over states" in rural areas where internet access is ludicrously expensive and very poorly implemented.   The RV market alone could be a significant start at a customer base. 

Offline ZChris13

Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #327 on: 09/13/2019 12:56 am »
Without lateral coms each bird in the constellation will only act as an aggregation point for the users within its reception area and will need to downlink to a ground station for further transmission. This has been discussed but I’m not sure there been discussion of the implications.

In his FCC application for the new architecture Elon seems to be positioning as an alternative com for disasters and is focusing on the southern US. This sucks as a full business model but makes sense as a wedge to justify the new plan. Ok, he has a deadline to get something up and running or he doesn’t get the license. Is there any FCC criteria for minimum usability or is it just some number of sats that can transmit/receive?

I’m trying to figure out a viable business model without lateral coms and am drawing a blank. Can’t claim low latency. Can’t claim to serve sparsely populated areas unless they have a local ground station which means there has to be a backbone in place somewhere in the area. This makes the constellation a glorified cell tower.

The only thing I can come up with is hitting FCC numbers ...

...

What alternatives can we come up with?



Yes, the initial, no interlinks sats mean that latency across the Atlantic or Pacific is no better than the routes in use today.

Yes, showing a working system to potential customers, investors and the Federal regulators is highly important, even if it is a loss leader.   

But, you have mis-estimate the utility of large swaths of North America being able to get high speed internet based upon the minimal constellation.  It will only take a minimum of 3 ground stations to serve all of the US (depending on usage).   There are many "fly over states" in rural areas where internet access is ludicrously expensive and very poorly implemented.   The RV market alone could be a significant start at a customer base.
The amount of rural America even on the east coast (I am, in particular, thinking about North Carolina and upstate South Carolina) that doesn't have proper broadband access despite being only a few miles out of town is extreme.

Offline Mandella

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 799
  • Likes Given: 2592
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #328 on: 09/13/2019 01:48 am »
Without lateral coms each bird in the constellation will only act as an aggregation point for the users within its reception area and will need to downlink to a ground station for further transmission. This has been discussed but I’m not sure there been discussion of the implications.

In his FCC application for the new architecture Elon seems to be positioning as an alternative com for disasters and is focusing on the southern US. This sucks as a full business model but makes sense as a wedge to justify the new plan. Ok, he has a deadline to get something up and running or he doesn’t get the license. Is there any FCC criteria for minimum usability or is it just some number of sats that can transmit/receive?

I’m trying to figure out a viable business model without lateral coms and am drawing a blank. Can’t claim low latency. Can’t claim to serve sparsely populated areas unless they have a local ground station which means there has to be a backbone in place somewhere in the area. This makes the constellation a glorified cell tower.

The only thing I can come up with is hitting FCC numbers ...

...

What alternatives can we come up with?



Yes, the initial, no interlinks sats mean that latency across the Atlantic or Pacific is no better than the routes in use today.

Yes, showing a working system to potential customers, investors and the Federal regulators is highly important, even if it is a loss leader.   

But, you have mis-estimate the utility of large swaths of North America being able to get high speed internet based upon the minimal constellation.  It will only take a minimum of 3 ground stations to serve all of the US (depending on usage).   There are many "fly over states" in rural areas where internet access is ludicrously expensive and very poorly implemented.   The RV market alone could be a significant start at a customer base.
The amount of rural America even on the east coast (I am, in particular, thinking about North Carolina and upstate South Carolina) that doesn't have proper broadband access despite being only a few miles out of town is extreme.

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

On the other hand, if you live in a metro area and have fiber or the like? Yeah, don't think you'll be too impressed.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #329 on: 09/13/2019 02:23 am »
In the metro Detroit area most have the choice of  AT&T, LTE, Comcast or secondary cable carriers  using others infrastructure. Fiber is slowly going in. Very. Slowly.

Affordable? 😬

Rural? 😬😬

Fertile ground.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2019 02:26 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline space_snap828

  • Member
  • Posts: 50
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #330 on: 09/13/2019 02:33 am »
In the metro Detroit area most have the choice of  AT&T, LTE, Comcast or secondary cable carriers  using others infrastructure. Fiber is slowly going in. Very. Slowly.

Affordable? 😬

Rural? 😬😬

Fertile ground.

I've wondered if net neutrality enforcement is going to be unnecessary to enforce in the near future. With the introduction of high-speed satellite internet, every ISP now has to compete with internet service from the sky. The monopolies and duopolies they've enjoyed, that have allowed them to jack prices and treat data unfairly, are coming to an end.
Perhaps the market is solving the issue. We shall see.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #331 on: 09/13/2019 02:37 am »
The satellites won't be great competitors in densely populated areas.

Offline DaveH62

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #332 on: 09/13/2019 02:48 am »
I think they’ll do continuous improvement, but lock down each flight load of 72 satellites. Improved chipsets or solar panels or improved mechanicals and engines. By the time the constellation is complete the satellites will be completely upgraded, while possibly never undergoing a single major refresh.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #333 on: 09/13/2019 02:53 am »
72 satellites?  Where are you getting that from?

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5103
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3553
  • Likes Given: 6004
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #334 on: 09/13/2019 03:57 am »
In the metro Detroit area most have the choice of  AT&T, LTE, Comcast or secondary cable carriers  using others infrastructure. Fiber is slowly going in. Very. Slowly.

Affordable? 😬

Rural? 😬😬

Fertile ground.

While listening to what ya’ll sayin, I’m trying to place myself into the internet consumer spectrum. Fifteen years on the road and everything I got came through my phone either straight or as a hotspot. And little time for much more than email and NSF lurking. Now that I’m retired I’ve been using a local ISP that started out local, got sold a time or three and is now part of a relatively small company with a presence in about five not so big markets in the Midwest.

I used the original local company for about a year before the lifestyle change. Never had any problems with the technical end but dealing with the front end was like dealing with the old ma bell. They were sphincters. This incarnation seems to be very business like and competent. Install was on time and later a dead router replaced no question. So I don’t feel the pain I hear about with the big boys.

With unlimited bandwidth (they throttle but I never get near the line) for $60/mo, star link would have to offer one hellava deal to make me look twice. I realize I’m atipical and am starting to see the attraction for a lot of rural areas, especially if the lower 48 can be covered by three (I’ll say 3-5) ground stations. If the price is right. And in a lot of cases even if the price is not quite so right.

Good thing Elon doesn’t listen to me. He’d be wasted as a shoe salesman.

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

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #335 on: 09/13/2019 04:22 am »
I think they’ll do continuous improvement, but lock down each flight load of 72 satellites. Improved chipsets or solar panels or improved mechanicals and engines. By the time the constellation is complete the satellites will be completely upgraded, while possibly never undergoing a single major refresh.

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

It allows Starlink to stay technologically fresh and competitive.  A virtuous cycle if you will... sustainable cheap launch allows frequent physical refresh... which allows frequent refresh of improvements (competitive capabilities, costs, etc.)... which is also demanded by satellite lifetime... which benefits from and requires sustainable cheap launch.

Offline Barley

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Liked: 669
  • Likes Given: 369
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #336 on: 09/13/2019 07:24 am »
"Mass production" is not black and white, and 1000s of units per year is not "mass" in any other industry - it's barely a pre-production run.

I bet anything that the satellites will continue to evolve, and the constellation will always be a mix of older and newer-more-capable satellites.
There are plenty of things that are produced in 1000s of units per year.  Guessing a little about market size and market fragmentation: MRI machines, spectrophotometers, dental X-ray machines, class II lift trucks.  Niche products to some extent, but there are a lot of niche products.

So there's plenty of people who know how to do this.  The production lines are in between JPL and GM.   A lot more hand work and batch processing than you'll see in an auto plant, but a recognizable production line.  With good change management the lines are tolerant to many (but not all) incremental changes.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12094
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18196
  • Likes Given: 12153
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #337 on: 09/13/2019 09:12 am »
"Mass production" is not black and white, and 1000s of units per year is not "mass" in any other industry - it's barely a pre-production run.

I bet anything that the satellites will continue to evolve, and the constellation will always be a mix of older and newer-more-capable satellites.
There are plenty of things that are produced in 1000s of units per year.  Guessing a little about market size and market fragmentation: MRI machines, spectrophotometers, dental X-ray machines, class II lift trucks.  Niche products to some extent, but there are a lot of niche products.

So there's plenty of people who know how to do this.  The production lines are in between JPL and GM.   A lot more hand work and batch processing than you'll see in an auto plant, but a recognizable production line.  With good change management the lines are tolerant to many (but not all) incremental changes.

Yes. This.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12094
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18196
  • Likes Given: 12153
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #338 on: 09/13/2019 09:21 am »
In the metro Detroit area most have the choice of  AT&T, LTE, Comcast or secondary cable carriers  using others infrastructure. Fiber is slowly going in. Very. Slowly.

Affordable? 😬

Rural? 😬😬

Fertile ground.

While listening to what ya’ll sayin, I’m trying to place myself into the internet consumer spectrum. Fifteen years on the road and everything I got came through my phone either straight or as a hotspot. And little time for much more than email and NSF lurking. Now that I’m retired I’ve been using a local ISP that started out local, got sold a time or three and is now part of a relatively small company with a presence in about five not so big markets in the Midwest.

I used the original local company for about a year before the lifestyle change. Never had any problems with the technical end but dealing with the front end was like dealing with the old ma bell. They were sphincters. This incarnation seems to be very business like and competent. Install was on time and later a dead router replaced no question. So I don’t feel the pain I hear about with the big boys.

With unlimited bandwidth (they throttle but I never get near the line) for $60/mo, star link would have to offer one hellava deal to make me look twice. I realize I’m atipical and am starting to see the attraction for a lot of rural areas, especially if the lower 48 can be covered by three (I’ll say 3-5) ground stations. If the price is right. And in a lot of cases even if the price is not quite so right.

Good thing Elon doesn’t listen to me. He’d be wasted as a shoe salesman.

Phil

Starlink IMO is not going to get all that much foot on the ground in areas with great existing terrestrial internet infrastructure, such as major cities in the USA, Canada and Europe and densily populated countries like my home country the Netherlands (where cable is currently being outclassed by fibre).

Fortunately mankind lives all over the planet and most of the planet does not exist of major cities or countries like the Netherlands.

So Starlink will be interesting to a very substantial portion of the world's population.

And heck, it will even be interesting to the farmers just outside the village where I live given that the local ISPs in the Netherlands (such as KPN and Ziggo) are (once again) refusing to invest in "fibre to the farm".
« Last Edit: 09/13/2019 09:23 am by woods170 »

Offline Tuna-Fish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Finland
  • Liked: 232
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #339 on: 09/13/2019 09:34 am »
Without lateral coms each bird in the constellation will only act as an aggregation point for the users within its reception area and will need to downlink to a ground station for further transmission.

...

Can’t claim to serve sparsely populated areas unless they have a local ground station which means there has to be a backbone in place somewhere in the area. This makes the constellation a glorified cell tower.

The second the sats are dense enough in the sky that each groundstation can always see more than one bird from the same plane (or alternatively, can always see sats from more than one plane), they no longer need backbone everywhere, they just need a groundstation with power, as they can bounce the message between groundstations and sats until it reaches somewhere with backbone access. The difference in cost of placing a disconnected groundstation within reach of every potential US customer to getting backbone access within reach of everyone is massive.

Tags: pole flip 
 

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