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

Starlink Aviation

starlink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 526 posts

Re: Starlink Aviation

#51

Post by walrus01 »

strgrd wrote: post #36

Are there no aerodynamic concerns for that installation? The VHF instruments pictured on top of the fuselage make this thing look like a plow that would be better fit on top of a Sprinter van... they couldn't have gone for a dome?

there are plenty of ku/ka-band geostationary VSAT systems that already exist, which mount as a bulge on the upper fuselage, which are larger and less aerodynamic than this.

in addition to antenna systems for iridium and inmarsat L/S-band stuff.

there is a lower limit to the size of aircraft that can accommodate something like this, of course.

for instance: https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2021/09/panasonic-next-gen-ku-...

https://www.getsat.com/products/milli-sat-ex/

Re: Starlink Aviation

#52

Post by Natsu »

amacalac wrote: post #2

Low latency for Video Calls? Sure, great on private charter jets where it’s you or a couple of people who know each other. Also, generally in favour of the march of technology, so I love this. Do Not Ever want on a flight where I’m sitting beside some random ass stranger who will chat or video chat to whoever at the top of their voice while I’m trying to relax.

I don't trust people to be polite. A set of earplugs and a mask can make plane rides a bit more comfortable, though.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#53

Post by jazzyjackson »

brianwawok wrote: post #45
MichaelZuo wrote: post #19

Looks like a very competitive product, assuming pricing is reasonable. It's interesting that they are rolling in the warranty cost with the monthly subscription. First time I've seen that. It will be great for aircraft owners looking to have a full featured internet experience in flight. Though the downside is that it will likely have priority when roaming into any cell, thus degrading service for ordinary ground bas…

Most of the time a plane is over farm fields or water. Highest demand for normal starlink is in cities. Not gonna be flying over NYC w this. Kind of a good fit I would think in terms of utilization.

> Highest demand for normal starlink is in cities.

?? cities have fiber, who wants starlink in a city?

Re: Starlink Aviation

#54

Post by MichaelCollins »

ceejayoz wrote: post #13
amacalac wrote: post #2

Low latency for Video Calls? Sure, great on private charter jets where it’s you or a couple of people who know each other. Also, generally in favour of the march of technology, so I love this. Do Not Ever want on a flight where I’m sitting beside some random ass stranger who will chat or video chat to whoever at the top of their voice while I’m trying to relax.

Do you similiarly object when they turn to the family member in the next seat over and hold a conversation?

Overhearing half a conversation is much worse worse than overhearing a full conversation. Overhearing conversations doesn't bother me but overhearing half of a telephone conversation drives me up a wall and makes me want to get out of wherever I am, which on a plane, isn't possible.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#55

Post by glowingly »

crazygringo wrote: post #33
gruez wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>unfortunately there is rarely room to use a laptop on the plane unless you're flying business What do you mean? I've flown before and 14" or 13.3" laptop fits just fine on the seat tray.

It certainly does. However, if you're even moderately tall, it's impossible to use the trackpad without elbowing the person next to you in the ribs, since the front of the laptop is basically touching your stomach once you open the laptop at enough of an angle to be able to see its display. (This is on a 13" MBA.) If all you're doing is watching video then it's fine. But trying to get real work done is incredibly awk…

My experience with largely with 14" laptops. I am moderately tall, IMO.

I will admit to using a Thinkpad.

For other laptops I've had, I use my thumbs + tap-to-click. Also a healthy dose of KB. I am buried in the console, so I will admit that a more graphically driven user may not appreciate thumbing the touchpad and navigating by KB.

Sometimes, the options for edge-inertial-scrolling, tap then hold to drag (i.e. click dragging with a mouse), etc seem to mostly be limited to synaptics touchpads and sometimes features disappear with OS or driver updates. Really annoying, when those features are what make marginal touchpad usage shine, IMO.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#56

Post by thot_experiment »

parker_mountain wrote: post #12
ralusek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather that be a problem left to etiquette, rather than avoided due to lack of technology.

> a problem left to etiquette I fly regularly, and it will absolutely become a problem on day 1.

This seems so backwards to me, why would you want other people to behave the way you want them to when you can just put in earplugs, noise cancelling headphones, have self control and not get annoyed, etc etc. It seems crazy to me that people consider something so minor to be uncouth or whatever. I think in general the onus to take care of something should be on the person getting annoyed and only until you've exhausted your easy options should it shift to compromise.

Like I get why we have cultural norms and stuff for the most part, but if it's something that you can easily solve for yourself imposing on other people seems very selfish.

Just let people live their lives and don't be mad.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#57

Post by JumpCrisscross »

parker_mountain wrote: post #12
ralusek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather that be a problem left to etiquette, rather than avoided due to lack of technology.

> a problem left to etiquette I fly regularly, and it will absolutely become a problem on day 1.

> it will absolutely become a problem on day 1

To the degree it's permitted by airline policy, it will almost certainly be on a premium Wi-fi tier and restricted to call booths.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#58

Post by MBCook »

ralusek wrote: post #6
amacalac wrote: post #2

Low latency for Video Calls? Sure, great on private charter jets where it’s you or a couple of people who know each other. Also, generally in favour of the march of technology, so I love this. Do Not Ever want on a flight where I’m sitting beside some random ass stranger who will chat or video chat to whoever at the top of their voice while I’m trying to relax.

I'd rather that be a problem left to etiquette, rather than avoided due to lack of technology.

Have you been around people in the last 10+ years?

Etiquette will fail.

If this ability is there, the airlines need rules. People will use it.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#59

Post by walrus01 »

pr337h4m wrote: post #44

https://support.starlink.com/topic?category=57

to give an idea of the lower bound size of aircraft this is possible on:

Which aircraft types are supported for Starlink Aviation?

Supplemental type certificate (STCs) are in development for the following aircraft: ERJ-135, ERJ-145, G650, G550, Falcon 2000, G450, Challenger 300, Challenger 350, Global Express, Global 5000, Global 6000, and Global 7500. The Starlink engineering team will update this list as development begins on additional aircraft.

----------------------

Presumably if you have something with a large flat upper surface that flies at fairly low speeds it would not be impossible to install physically, though possibly without a STC to make it legal/legit for the FAA...

You are unlikely to get one of these officially working on a hondajet or any of the small to mid size Cessna for instance.

Something in the size range of a twin otter could almost certainly mount one without serious problems, though might only be okay legally in a non faa jurisdiction.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#60

Post by carabiner »

strgrd wrote: post #36

Are there no aerodynamic concerns for that installation? The VHF instruments pictured on top of the fuselage make this thing look like a plow that would be better fit on top of a Sprinter van... they couldn't have gone for a dome?

Barely any... the fuselage is non-lifting and this will add a bit of parasite drag. Same with rain, dirt buildup on surfaces.
Post reply on HN