Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 331 posts

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#101

Post by seatotree »

unepipe wrote: post #58
neo4sure wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to know how this technology will affect the great firewall of China, does anyone have any ideas?

It will not affect it in any way. They have released their plans for Starlink and there will be a "blackout" zone over China, so China doesn't shoot down their satellites. In 2007, China shot down FY-1C as a test of a kinetic kill vehicle (leaving tons of high speed space debris). Unless they receive approval from China to broadcast, they won't over China. Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-internet-satell…

If China shoots down a SpaceX satellite, that is an act of war against the United States. China wouldn’t risk it. This is a great opportunity to break the great firewall and finally give the Chinese people access to unfiltered information.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#102

Post by mirimir »

psisbwvaiia wrote: post #82
52-6F-62 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> shot down FY-1C as a test of a kinetic kill vehicle (leaving tons of high speed space debris) Do you have more info on this? Or anyone? That's so crass. It's plain indefensible. I really want to know more. edit: Thanks for the links.

Why is it indefensible to defend your nation’s sovereignty. Many nations have google maps blur out their military bases for example. I’m sure lots of North Americans wouldn’t want Chinese satellites overhead for concern of privacy. I mean, generating tons of space junk is not cool. But what else are you going to do if others are lurking on your airspace? It is going to be shift is policy though. We are going to need…

How far does "airspace" extend? I can see that for low orbit, but geostationary?

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#103

Post by hinkley »

walrus01 wrote: post #86
hinkley wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geosynchronous orbit is 35k kilometers up, which a calculator tells me is 119 light milliseconds from the surface. Iridium satellites were the first set of satellites I could find numbers for that made any kind of relevant example. They orbited at 781 kilometers, or 2.6 light milliseconds away. Over 45 times closer.

okay... so i work in two way satellite and will expand a bit on what this looks like in real world practice, with currently available technology and satellite architectures. geostationary orbit dedicated (1:1) transponder capacity, in real world use with large earth stations and SCPC modems, has latency of around 485ms to 490ms for a return trip ping. That's a figure from remote earth station (example: Nauru) to the…

I was very careful not to draw any conclusion besides "closer" because this is not my wheelhouse.

Some of the low cost wireless broadband projects have proposed the use of a ground station fairly nearby as the upstream network provider but I haven't the fuzziest what SpaceX has planned.

In your opinion what fraction of the overall delays in the network are attributable to the diameter of the orbit (great circle distance and ground-to-satellite distance) instead of the limitations of the hardware?

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#104

Post by dsparkman »

pmorici wrote: post #41
neo4sure wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to know how this technology will affect the great firewall of China, does anyone have any ideas?

Probably not really a factor. Countries were the government wants to control the Internet or communications in general will outlaw the possession of sat-com equipment if they can't get adequate control over it through some other means.

Just like India does.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#105

Post by wmf »

bpd1069 wrote: post #4

This is monumental - I claim every major advance in communication technology immediately precedes a major progress for society. This will make the 'Internet' truly global and ubiquitous. So excited for the developing world.

It's still going to be more expensive than wired Internet. In the developing world where PTTs impose crazy prices they will impose those costs on top of whatever SpaceX charges.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#106

Post by mirimir »

zapita wrote: post #99
space_fountain wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Space X is actually aiming for a low earth orbit constellation. I've heard others mention numbers of around 50ms which is quite acceptable in my mind.

But how does that 50ms factor into the overall latency experienced by the end user?

As I recall, SpaceX will route usersat1sat2server. At low orbit, rtt for sat1sat2 is comparable to that for userserver. Maybe even less, because ~vacuum vs fiber or copper. So you just add 50 msec to the landline rtt.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#107

Post by walrus01 »

hinkley wrote: post #103
walrus01 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

okay... so i work in two way satellite and will expand a bit on what this looks like in real world practice, with currently available technology and satellite architectures. geostationary orbit dedicated (1:1) transponder capacity, in real world use with large earth stations and SCPC modems, has latency of around 485ms to 490ms for a return trip ping. That's a figure from remote earth station (example: Nauru) to the…

I was very careful not to draw any conclusion besides "closer" because this is not my wheelhouse. Some of the low cost wireless broadband projects have proposed the use of a ground station fairly nearby as the upstream network provider but I haven't the fuzziest what SpaceX has planned. In your opinion what fraction of the overall delays in the network are attributable to the diameter of the orbit (great circle dista…

delays in geostationary orbit based systems are limited by basically two things... one is the distance, assuming dedicated 1:1 capacity. From a consumer internet user perspective the other delays are oversubscription and TDMA timeslice related. Consumer grade VSAT-based internet services (hughnesnet, viasat, etc) that you can buy for a cabin in a far rural part of Idaho are oversubscribed at a 16:1, 32:1 or greater ratio. So the RTT latency will be anywhere from 495ms in the middle of the night up to 1250ms during peak evening hours. This is a network architecture limitation/capacity limitation at layers 2 and 3, not so much about the physical distance that the RF has to travel.

The SpaceX system will likely operate somewhat similarly to o3b, which has a number of backbone link earth stations around the earth, adjacent to major fiber IX points. They don't want to endlessly pass data satellite-to-satellite-to-satellite because that will reduce the overall throughput and capacity of the system. Within a single moving spot beam I bet they are designing the system to pass data satellite-to-satellite if necessary. Or as few hops as possible. Once again using a rural Idaho example, at any given time a satellite or an adjacent pair of satellites in two orbital planes might "see" both a rural cabin CPE, and also a larger earth station/trunk link located next to terrestrial fiber in Boise. The goal is to get the traffic from the CPE to Boise in a few hops as possible. Ideally in a single "bent pipe" relay architecture.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#108

Post by hinkley »

Background section from one of the attachments to that announcement:

On November 15, 2016, SpaceX filed an application requesting authority for its proposed NGSO FSS satellite system, comprising 4,425 satellites in 83 orbital planes, at an approximate altitude of 1,110 to 1,325 kilometers. In this application, SpaceX proposes to operate in the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 13.85-14.5 GHz, 17.8-18.6 GHz, 18.8-19.3 GHz, 27.5-29.1 GHz, and 29.5-30 GHz bands. SpaceX also requests waivers of certain Commission rules.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#109

Post by InclinedPlane »

ArlenBales wrote: post #88

As a hiker who likes to spend many nights camping out in the remote wilderness, this will be a blessing but also a curse. I'll be able to stay connected to family and friends, and have emergency services and information available if necessary, but at the same time I'll have Hacker News and Reddit distractions - but inevitably this is the way the future will be, so it's time to get used to it. At least when going on a…

This service won't do that. This is not for satellite phones, that would be Iridium (or more accurately, Iridium NEXT which will come online soon), this is for fixed installation or perhaps vehicle based broadband. It'll require a fairly substantial, sophisticated, and expensive antenna (think pizza box sized) to use, and a lot of power as well. This won't connect directly to handsets. It'll be helpful for providing broadband internet access to remote or less developed locations, it'll be helpful to set a cost/performance baseline across the globe for broadband service, and it'll also likely be useful in providing broadband service for various vehicles such as planes, boats, and automobiles, if they are large enough to have the spare power and area to run the antenna.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#110

Post by adventured »

wmf wrote: post #105
bpd1069 wrote: post #4

This is monumental - I claim every major advance in communication technology immediately precedes a major progress for society. This will make the 'Internet' truly global and ubiquitous. So excited for the developing world.

It's still going to be more expensive than wired Internet. In the developing world where PTTs impose crazy prices they will impose those costs on top of whatever SpaceX charges.

No chance it's going to be more expensive than comparable wired - fiber or cable - Internet.

You're leaving out the vast cost to build & maintain the wired infrastructure. Tax payers & consumers in those developing nations have to pay for that. That cost has to be included with the monthly fees to do a serious comparison.

Post reply on HN