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

What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

nrk.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 264 posts

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#251

Post by cbeach »

tedivm wrote: post #250
cbeach wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink's laser system is already up and running. Back in January it was delivering over 42 petabytes per day: https://uk.pcmag.com/networking/150673/starlinks-laser-syste... “We're passing over terabits per second [of data] every day across 9,000 lasers,” SpaceX engineer Travis Brashears said today at SPIE Photonics West, an event in San Francisco focused on the latest advancements in optics and light. "We actually…

Again though, you can't do "Starlink from the satellites, so we don't rely on a specific ground station" unless all of the satellites support talking to Starlink, which they don't. That means they'd have to be replaced.

I feel like I'm missing something here.

As I understand it, the Starlink network has a number of ground stations, and an active inter-satellite "mesh," thanks to laser links, which would allow it to route around the loss of one or more ground stations? (although obviously it requires at least one ground station to be live in order to access the non-Starlink-connected Internet)

The lasers began being integrated between 2020 and 2021, so it's likely SpaceX has made decent progress equipping their network with this capability, although I can't find the latest figures for the proportion of satellites that have lasers.

It sounds like there's something I'm missing if we can't do "Starlink from the satellites, so we don't rely on a specific ground station"

Could you help me understand the limitation?

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#252

Post by mrguyorama »

mortb wrote: post #177

What kind of international law can we expect in the future? A law that is constantly broken by various maleficent actors? Of course we've heard them complain that the current order is run by the west and harmful to others. What are the alternatives? A hundred cables?

"Real" international law would require a sovereign international government that is more powerful than any singular nation.

You need to construct an entity that both the US and China make themselves fully subservient to.

Good luck.

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#253

Post by Suppafly »

silverlyra wrote: post #219
csmpltn wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that boat trawling directly over the same area where the cables were damaged? Unclear from the tweet alone...

yes – the trawling pattern in the GIF is over (part of) the area marked as damaged in the NRK article: https://www.nrk.no/tromsogfinnmark/this-is-what-the-damaged-...

that part loads funny, i had to reload the article and click on the little globe picture before it loaded and then it still didn't load correctly.

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#254

Post by ltbarcly3 »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #187
thaumasiotes wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dave Barry made a similar observation about antismoking PSAs, objecting to one that had someone throw a diseased lung on a table. He pointed out that you could present any random internal organ and it would look just as bad: " This is what will happen to you if you keep smoking. Look! A perfectly healthy goat kidney!"

Thats what they do. Those lungs are fake, sold by medical supply companies. They just take a healthy pig lung and dye it black and burn holes in it for "tumors". You can google for places to buy them.

I'm pretty sure there is some of automated brigading, every post I make gets modded down for no reason. Why mod this down? It's just a fact that is easily verifiable. It had been voted up to 2 or 3, then very quickly went to 0. Very odd.

https://www.fishersci.com/shop/products/smokers-lungs-kit-2/...

"These inflatable swine lungs have been stained realistically and then specially preserved in odorless, nontoxic solution that retains the texture and elasticity of fresh lungs."

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#255

Post by Suppafly »

nradov wrote: post #127
varenc wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder how much data per unit of time this is capable of transporting. The max throughput of fiber optic cables isn't exactly constant. As fiber optic modem and DSP technology improves you can get much higher speeds on 15+ year-old cables than were ever possible when they were laid. Recently I saw an article about researchers getting 300,000 Gbit/s over existing fiber optic cables (though I'm sure that's a long w…

You're referring to single continuous fiber optic cables on land. Long undersea cables incorporate powered repeaters. Those can't be upgraded in situ with improved technology.

would the repeaters need to be replaced? if you are compressing the data differently or sending it faster or whatever, I'm not sure the repeaters care, they are just amplifying the signal, not decoding it and resending it.

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#256

Post by jtriangle »

a20eac1d wrote: post #247
jtriangle wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use SM for short runs, you just have to match the optics to the cable/distance you're looking to use. Tons of very fast single mode optics out there that only expect That said, it's likely not worth it, given that cabling is typically viewed as a ~10 year investment, and if you're installing OM4 Multimode fiber in a house you're not likely to hit the limit of that fiber within 10 years even in extreme use cas…

But why stop at 10 years? If the theoretical bandwidth limit of SM Fiber is above 100 Gbit/s then there is simply no way that a household will need more internal bandwidth than that. Even for the next 20-30 years, because other technologies (like SATA) will be the limiting factor. I believe this could be a case of future proofing that will actually last 30-40 years, no?

10 years is the guideline because you can't predict most of the future, but, you can predict the physical wear fairly well. It's likely that the plastic terminations will be iffy by that point basically, which means reterminating, or, running new fiber, and most of the time you'll just run new fiber.

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#257

Post by IndySun »

moi2388 wrote: post #241
IndySun wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone curious, I found the relevant sentence. An astonishingly counterintuitive almost throwaway remark by a world's expert sent me on a deep dive on what else can and does cause lung problems. Dr Martin Tobin says it at 3h 02m 40s... https://www.c-span.org/video/?510467-1/derek-chauvin-trial-d...

He said that less than 10% of smokers HAVE lung issues, not “eventually get” lung issues. Big, big difference.

Thanks for your input. You're rephrasing what I do say, but with capital letters. Not sure what your point is.

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#258

Post by tedivm »

cbeach wrote: post #251
tedivm wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again though, you can't do "Starlink from the satellites, so we don't rely on a specific ground station" unless all of the satellites support talking to Starlink, which they don't. That means they'd have to be replaced.

I feel like I'm missing something here. As I understand it, the Starlink network has a number of ground stations, and an active inter-satellite "mesh," thanks to laser links, which would allow it to route around the loss of one or more ground stations? (although obviously it requires at least one ground station to be live in order to access the non-Starlink-connected Internet) The lasers began being integrated betwee…

Do you understand what the problem trying to be solved is?

There are satellites in orbit today that have nothing to do with Starlink. Some of these have been up for a long time. We're talking weather satellites and research satellites. The ones in a polar orbit can only use one of two ground stations to communicate back with the earth, simply due to their location. One of those ground stations has lost it's fiber optic connection so it can't be used at full bandwidth right now.

None of that so far has anything to do with Starlink. We're talking about a system os satellites that already exists and predates Starlink sometimes by decades.

The person that started this thread proposed: "Maybe just use Starlink from the satellites, so we don't rely on a specific ground station." In other words, have these already existing satellites integrate with the (relatively new) Starlink system.

So they're saying that we somehow make those old satellites, which are already in orbit and have their own communication systems designed to interface with ground stations, somehow stop using the ground station and start using Starlink instead.

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#259

Post by cbeach »

tedivm wrote: post #258
cbeach wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like I'm missing something here. As I understand it, the Starlink network has a number of ground stations, and an active inter-satellite "mesh," thanks to laser links, which would allow it to route around the loss of one or more ground stations? (although obviously it requires at least one ground station to be live in order to access the non-Starlink-connected Internet) The lasers began being integrated betwee…

Do you understand what the problem trying to be solved is? There are satellites in orbit today that have nothing to do with Starlink. Some of these have been up for a long time. We're talking weather satellites and research satellites. The ones in a polar orbit can only use one of two ground stations to communicate back with the earth, simply due to their location. One of those ground stations has lost it's fiber opt…

I understand the point you were making, now. Thanks for explaining.

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#260

Post by immibis »

SideQuark wrote: post #244
immibis wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also a technology-independent Shannon limit for a cable. You can calculate Shannon limits based on the bandwidth and noise of your specific fiber-optic transceivers, which can improve, but you can also calculate one based on the cable itself. The Shannon limit already accounts for any number of channels and any level of QAM.

I just gave you a paper showing that is not the case. I even provided the quote. There is no inherent limit from physics, only from engineering. History provides ample evidence were a given medium had it's "Shannon Limit" broken via new signaling methods over the same medium. The terms you used, "bandwidth" and "noise" are technological, not physical. "Bandwidth" increases each time we invent better methods to pack a…

Bandwidth does not increase based on packing methods. Bandwidth refers to analog signal bandwidth, something we can measure - not data rate. MIMO gets around the Shannon limit by creating more channels, like putting more fibers in a bundle.
Post reply on HN