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

511–520 of 526 posts

Re: Starlink Aviation

#511

Post by shaklee3 »

schappim wrote: post #501
shaklee3 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a common thing SpaceX people say, but in reality, it doesn't matter that much. streaming media isn't affected by latency at all, and web browsing/app usage is good enough. what really suffers is real time games or VPN, but that's not as common.

250ms minimum latency (just for the speed of light), once you add switching that's going to be over 400ms. You have to be pretty apologetic to accept this. I live in Australia (118ms round trip), and whenever I'm in SF, I'm amazed at the quality of life increase brought about by decreased latency. It feels like the whole net is on localhost.

so geosynchronous switching adds 150ms, but starlink is only adding 100ms?

Re: Starlink Aviation

#512

Post by JustSomeNobody »

coob wrote: post #509
HyperSane wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The media loves to whip up a frenzy over Musk" No, Musk does that himself by saying and doing a lot of very stupid things and also lying a lot.

It's fair to say it's both.

I think the media would likely ignore him most of the time if he were boring.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#513

Post by lm28469 »

bottlepalm wrote: post #507
lm28469 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't lithium be dug with solar power? It isn't and most likely won't be until upgrading the whole production is cheaper than burning fossil fuel and god knows how long it'll take given how advanced and specific mining equipment is. And even if it was 100% electric, it's still an absolute nasty thing: https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/01/south-america-s-li... > Electric cars are a huge step forward. Only i…

The entire world uses vehicles of all shapes and sizes. If they’re all built and powered with sunlight, what does it matter if it’s a passenger car or not.

Tire pollution, need for more resources to build the vehicle, harder to dispose/recycle, &c.

It's not so hard to imagine how it all adds up, there are 1.4B personal vehicles on earth, 1 tonne vs 3 tonnes adds up real quick

Re: Starlink Aviation

#514

Post by matmatmatmat »

wolrah wrote: post #409
Thlom wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you have bandwidth latency really isn’t that important for most activities. It can suck a bit for voice and video calls (but not as bad as you might think). Online fast paced gaming is of course out of the question.

> As long as you have bandwidth latency really isn’t that important for most activities. As someone who recently spent a week at a vacation house that had HughesNet, you have no idea how wrong this is. Every single individual request your browser makes has an extra half second attached to it even starting. Every TLS handshake takes a full second and a half, multiplied by every different host you're connecting to whil…

I've done paid work on an airplane WiFi connection through Viasat and really did not find the latency to be an issue at all, including working in the terminal.

No doubt everyone has different experiences and tolerance levels for latency, but, really, I think the latency issue is vastly overblown.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#515

Post by matmatmatmat »

addaon wrote: post #158
kjksf wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per https://viasat.widen.net/s/clgfbt6sdz/1487977_business_aviat... $2795 is for 15GB data cap which is nothing. Their unlimited local service is $10k, unlimited global service is $14k $14k is more expensive than the cheapest $12.5k from Starlink and less expensive than $25k most expensive plan. Except Starlink is 350 MB/s vs. 30 MB/s from ViaSat. Starlink is 5x-10x cheaper per speed.

Viasat latency is also typical for geostationary service, which is to say bad to the point of being limiting. For things like videoconferencing, Starlink will be much more viable, even at the same bandwidth.

I regularly videoconference with team members who are on geostationary Viasat..., it's just not an issue. They say they had to learn how to adapt a little bit by giving people time to finish their thoughts, that's about it.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#516

Post by matmatmatmat »

kjksf wrote: post #101
carl_dr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vs “from $2795 per month” for Viasat. https://go.viasat.com/BAV-Viasat-Select-Business-Jet-WiFi.ht...

Per https://viasat.widen.net/s/clgfbt6sdz/1487977_business_aviat... $2795 is for 15GB data cap which is nothing. Their unlimited local service is $10k, unlimited global service is $14k $14k is more expensive than the cheapest $12.5k from Starlink and less expensive than $25k most expensive plan. Except Starlink is 350 MB/s vs. 30 MB/s from ViaSat. Starlink is 5x-10x cheaper per speed.

Starlink promises 350 Mb/s, not MB/s, although given their current promises vs actual speeds, I think customers may adjust their expectations a bit.

Not sure where you pulled 30 Mb/s for Viasat service but it regularly tests more than 2x as fast as that (on the current-gen satellites, the newest of which is 5 years-old by now. Viasat-3 Americas has actually over 5x the capacity of Viasat-2 along with a big bag of other goodies that will enable a class of service heretofore unseen.)

Re: Starlink Aviation

#517

Post by coryfklein »

s3p wrote: post #500
coryfklein wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but now if you're not online during your flight it's because "you chose to" and you're a slacker. Another dimension here is that it's a refuge from "the always on" society; if you were to step back and look at your life from a distance almost everyone would say "I need to disconnect more", but you often don't realize how dependent you are on that dopamine hit the connected internet provides until you're forced t…

Who on earth is telling you that you are a slacker for not buying Wifi on your flights?

My inner voice! As with most people, I'm my own worst critic.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#518

Post by soheil »

noduerme wrote: post #183
soheil wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if airlines enforced callers to put their device on speaker that'd resolve the issue?

Not really, since casually joining someone else's speaker call is almost as rude as taking one in the first place. The objective when designing any environment where people are forced together is to limit interpersonal friction and, where possible, encourage civility and cooperation. From that perspective, all verbalizations to or from people not interacting with the environment are detrimental.

> all verbalizations to or from people not interacting with the environment are detrimental

huh? connecting with someone you love over a video call is detrimental to the environment you're in?

Re: Starlink Aviation

#519

Post by HyperSane »

coob wrote: post #509
HyperSane wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The media loves to whip up a frenzy over Musk" No, Musk does that himself by saying and doing a lot of very stupid things and also lying a lot.

It's fair to say it's both.

A big reason he says so many stupid things is he loves the attention.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#520

Post by Scoundreller »

rjzzleep wrote: post #263
zuhayeer wrote: post #100

Once upon a time, all plane transmissions were pretty much air to ground. As inconsequential as it may seem, the positioning of antennas above the plane are a bit metaphoric for flipping things up side down. Looking out into space instead of back to earth. Also notable that SpaceX keeps finding these cool (revenue generating) use cases to further cheapen the cost of sending things up to space. Pretty much dogfooding…

One of the main reasons for air to air transmission is because engine data (and potentially blackbox) data is transmitted through inmarsat satellites. There are two major problems here: 1. when you reach a major transit hub, such as NY airspace the bandwidth is very limited due to the sheer amount of traffic 2. Inmarsats network structure was(is?) like a honeycomb. So the further away you are from the center of each…

> One of the main reasons for air to air transmission is because engine data (and potentially blackbox) data is transmitted through inmarsat satellites.

Lots of HF-DataLink still out there. Funny seeing the pings from on-lease Russian aircraft that Russian airlines seized.

Post reply on HN