Author Topic: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2  (Read 1272972 times)

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1220 on: 03/29/2020 04:09 pm »
Matt Desch really impressed me during the 8 Iridium launches. 

I think the slow and careful he is referring too is when Starlink rolled back it's initial plan and coverage to just the US. 

Get the revenue stream turned on and then get more birds up and more licenses in different countries.

Note: It's a shame about Oneweb filing bankruptcy. It would be good to have more competition.
I don't think they were really ever a credible competitor, and their failure to raise more money at this relatively early stage is evidence of that.

I think they were only a sort of harassing player that adds friction but no value - not the kind of peer competition you want.

At least this way SL will pick up some additional early customers, and since Musk always acts as if there's a competitor breathing down his neck, I don't see much harm in OneWeb's demise.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Luc

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1221 on: 03/29/2020 04:21 pm »

Note: It's a shame about Oneweb filing bankruptcy. It would be good to have more competition.
I don't think they were really ever a credible competitor, and their failure to raise more money at this relatively early stage is evidence of that.

I think they were only a sort of harassing player that adds friction but no value - not the kind of peer competition you want.

At least this way SL will pick up some additional early customers, and since Musk always acts as if there's a competitor breathing down his neck, I don't see much harm in OneWeb's demise.

Seems like OneWeb might present a shortcut for Bezos in terms of licensing if not technology - speaking of harassment competitors.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1222 on: 03/29/2020 04:25 pm »

Note: It's a shame about Oneweb filing bankruptcy. It would be good to have more competition.
I don't think they were really ever a credible competitor, and their failure to raise more money at this relatively early stage is evidence of that.

I think they were only a sort of harassing player that adds friction but no value - not the kind of peer competition you want.

At least this way SL will pick up some additional early customers, and since Musk always acts as if there's a competitor breathing down his neck, I don't see much harm in OneWeb's demise.

Seems like OneWeb might present a shortcut for Bezos in terms of licensing if not technology - speaking of harassment competitors.
Sure, but Bezos, once he gets NG going, might actually be able to be a real competitor.

Whether he'll be able to pick up the spectrum rights is questionable IMO. We'll find out pretty quickly if he intends to take over and complete this constellation.  If not, he still needs to stand in line with everyone else, and nothing prevents players like Iridium to file plans too.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Luc

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1223 on: 03/29/2020 04:37 pm »
If he buys the company, doesn’t he get the spectrum rights?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1224 on: 03/29/2020 04:45 pm »
There is a thread for OneWeb, and further OneWeb discussion will be moved there.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37814.0

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10224
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1225 on: 04/01/2020 02:26 pm »
Tom Choi gave an interesting interview to Via Satellite about OneWeb's bankruptcy, in which he also criticized Starlink.  He said LEO broadband was a bad idea that keeps harming the satellite industry.  He focused specifically on the user terminal cost.

User terminals seem to me to be a more tractable problem for Musk, Inc.  Musk is starting to manufacture in a market that is only about one order of magnitude greater than his past experience.

That said, Choi is an interesting character with interesting views, so it was an enjoyable read.

Quote from: Tom Choi
Needless to say, Starlink is a gigantic overhang to the industry and until what happens to that project is clear, people maybe apprehensive about doing any deals.

https://www.satellitetoday.com/business/2020/03/31/tom-choi-onewebs-failure-will-dent-newspace-investment/
« Last Edit: 04/01/2020 02:32 pm by RedLineTrain »

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2604
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1226 on: 04/01/2020 03:16 pm »
Tom Choi gave an interesting interview to Via Satellite about OneWeb's bankruptcy, in which he also criticized Starlink.  He said LEO broadband was a bad idea that keeps harming the satellite industry.  He focused specifically on the user terminal cost.

User terminals seem to me to be a more tractable problem for Musk, Inc.  Musk is starting to manufacture in a market that is only about one order of magnitude greater than his past experience.

That said, Choi is an interesting character with interesting views, so it was an enjoyable read.

Quote from: Tom Choi
Needless to say, Starlink is a gigantic overhang to the industry and until what happens to that project is clear, people maybe apprehensive about doing any deals.

https://www.satellitetoday.com/business/2020/03/31/tom-choi-onewebs-failure-will-dent-newspace-investment/

I have zero idea how he came to this conclusion:

Quote
Today you can build affordable GEO (High Throughput Satellites) HTS at one-tenth the capacity cost vs. LEO broadband. Just what problem are they solving?

'please cite'

Every Starlink launch puts up more capacity (1200 gbps) than the $700m Viasat 3 satellite.

Honestly, most of it sounds personal/snarky/salty goalseeking.
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1422
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 2040
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1227 on: 04/01/2020 04:53 pm »
Quote
The first company that has a sub-$100 terminal, that doesn’t require commercial power, works all the time and can charge 10 cents per gigabyte will connect the 3.5 billion people. Until your technology does that please do not start and tell the world you are smarter than us.

Reminds me of this recent conversation (paraphrased):
Zubrin: To make this much fuel, you'd need acres of solar panels.
Musk: Then that's what we'll do.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Liked: 1084
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1228 on: 04/01/2020 11:58 pm »
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).

Offline Tulse

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 546
  • Liked: 395
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1229 on: 04/02/2020 03:23 am »
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue.
What is the actual bandwidth on Lynk? I thought the problem with 4G/5G directly to space is that the bandwidth is barely enough for text messages. That's just not the business that Starlink wants to be in -- they want to provide internet.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1230 on: 04/02/2020 03:38 am »
Quote
The first company that has a sub-$100 terminal, that doesn’t require commercial power, works all the time and can charge 10 cents per gigabyte will connect the 3.5 billion people. Until your technology does that please do not start and tell the world you are smarter than us.

Reminds me of this recent conversation (paraphrased):
Zubrin: To make this much fuel, you'd need acres of solar panels.
Musk: Then that's what we'll do.

To be fair the solution to the "acres of solar panels" problem is obvious because of the designed cargo capability of Starship, it is not obvious Starlink design would result in sub-$100 terminals. The good news is Starlink doesn't need sub-$100 terminal or 10 cents per gigabyte or reaching 3.5 billion people to be profitable.

Also does HTS GEO satellites actually have sub-$100 terminal or 10 cents per gigabyte? I don't think that's the case.

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1231 on: 04/02/2020 04:37 am »
Quote
The first company that has a sub-$100 terminal, that doesn’t require commercial power, works all the time and can charge 10 cents per gigabyte will connect the 3.5 billion people. Until your technology does that please do not start and tell the world you are smarter than us.

Reminds me of this recent conversation (paraphrased):
Zubrin: To make this much fuel, you'd need acres of solar panels.
Musk: Then that's what we'll do.

To be fair the solution to the "acres of solar panels" problem is obvious because of the designed cargo capability of Starship, it is not obvious Starlink design would result in sub-$100 terminals. The good news is Starlink doesn't need sub-$100 terminal or 10 cents per gigabyte or reaching 3.5 billion people to be profitable.

Also does HTS GEO satellites actually have sub-$100 terminal or 10 cents per gigabyte? I don't think that's the case.

It doesn't matter to me if GEO sat operators PAID ME $100 to take one of their terminals, their service is unusable to me because of latency. 

Before arguing about price, how about offering a product that satisfies the requirements.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2020 04:38 am by DigitalMan »

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Liked: 1084
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1232 on: 04/02/2020 05:51 am »
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue.
What is the actual bandwidth on Lynk? I thought the problem with 4G/5G directly to space is that the bandwidth is barely enough for text messages. That's just not the business that Starlink wants to be in -- they want to provide internet.

Bandwidth is generally a function of frequency, followed by how many users are sharing that frequency within a particular spot beam, followed by the performance/size of the spot beam antenna (receiver generally wants a larger antenna, transmitter wants more power, both a resource restricted on most satellites). Lynk is more hobbled by not have a megaconstellations worth of coverage, so their supposed initial constellation only provides hourly coverage, with time limited to a few minutes per pass, and their antenna isn't huge either (antenna size will limit the ability to pick up weak signals from phones). That situation favors small data size async stuff like text messages for IoT telemetry. If you build a huge antenna (fab in space, not a deployable) that improves things immensely, followed by having gobs of power for transmit and phased array control.


Offline Mandella

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 799
  • Likes Given: 2592
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1233 on: 04/02/2020 05:56 am »
Quote
The first company that has a sub-$100 terminal, that doesn’t require commercial power, works all the time and can charge 10 cents per gigabyte will connect the 3.5 billion people. Until your technology does that please do not start and tell the world you are smarter than us.

Reminds me of this recent conversation (paraphrased):
Zubrin: To make this much fuel, you'd need acres of solar panels.
Musk: Then that's what we'll do.

To be fair the solution to the "acres of solar panels" problem is obvious because of the designed cargo capability of Starship, it is not obvious Starlink design would result in sub-$100 terminals. The good news is Starlink doesn't need sub-$100 terminal or 10 cents per gigabyte or reaching 3.5 billion people to be profitable.

Also does HTS GEO satellites actually have sub-$100 terminal or 10 cents per gigabyte? I don't think that's the case.

It's just a bizarre argument anyway. The combination modem and satellite dish and cabling on my house right now adds up to more than $100 -- much more years ago when I first got satellite. Closer to $1000 IIRC.
And "poor country folk" are walking around with >$500 phones in their pocket all over the place out here.
If Starlink works reliably, there is a market for it, no question.

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 #1234 on: 04/02/2020 03:03 pm »
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).


In the end, telephony is data. CALEA issues are the responsibility of the service provider; Skype and whoever, not the backbone.
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 Rondaz

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27059
  • Liked: 5301
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1235 on: 04/02/2020 08:33 pm »
In its latest petition against #ProjectKuiper's @FCC filing @SpaceX argues @amazon requests special treatment by inclusion in a processing round closed 3y ago, evading commitments towards interference avoidance and a "mechanical approach" towards the same:

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1245796084548603910

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1236 on: 04/03/2020 02:58 am »
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).


In the end, telephony is data. CALEA issues are the responsibility of the service provider; Skype and whoever, not the backbone.

SpaceX will need to provide telephone service if they want FCC rural broadband subsidy.

Offline Eka

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Land between two rivers.
  • Liked: 441
  • Likes Given: 864
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1237 on: 04/04/2020 06:15 am »
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).


In the end, telephony is data. CALEA issues are the responsibility of the service provider; Skype and whoever, not the backbone.

SpaceX will need to provide telephone service if they want FCC rural broadband subsidy.
Telephone service is relatively simple to add. Place a phone system to internet bridge at each downlink, and add an internet phone, and UPS to the user satellite terminal package. The UPS is to maintain service during a power outage.
We talk about creating a Star Trek future, but will end up with The Expanse if radical change doesn't happen.

Offline Eka

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Land between two rivers.
  • Liked: 441
  • Likes Given: 864
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1238 on: 04/04/2020 06:34 am »
On cost of the user satellite terminal. If it wasn't for the servo aiming system, I'd have said it was easy to keep the manufacturing cost under $100. Standard automated PCB assembly equipment can make the antenna array and driver hardware. After that is stick it into the case, test, and box it. I've commented some on what I think it takes to make it in the hardware thread. The servo aiming system likely adds over $50 to the manufacturing cost.

Issues I see is snow and ice buildup, as well as bird nests.
We talk about creating a Star Trek future, but will end up with The Expanse if radical change doesn't happen.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5412
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3861
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1239 on: 04/04/2020 04:36 pm »
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).


In the end, telephony is data. CALEA issues are the responsibility of the service provider; Skype and whoever, not the backbone.

SpaceX will need to provide telephone service if they want FCC rural broadband subsidy.

I can hear Elon saying 'Hold my beer'.

Being reliable, providing 911 service shouldn't be breaking new ground.

Edit: I'm more interested in seeing when they finish the investigation from the last launches engine failure and get back to putting up more birds.  I'm really looking forward to seeing customers sign up and see the speedtest.net results.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2020 04:43 pm by wannamoonbase »
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

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
0