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

SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 290 posts

Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites

#101

Post by bargl »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #51
bargl wrote: post #33

This is such a cool problem. We already have a ton of Geo sat which can do this kind of communication but they are super expensive and have a limited bandwidth. These satellites will actually have a ton of limitations in how much data they can send around and how they'll have to balance out their signals. Geo are easier to point to because, well they don't move. But these are going to be moving and changing all the t…

> Think about switching your router every 10 minutes. Cellular and WiFi AP roaming are solved problems. For SpaceX, this will be rather straightforward as the design specifies fixed ground stations that will handle negotiating/maintaining upstream connection(s). > Or you get a rainy day and your signal clarity goes down. That's more likely to be an issue, but having multiple satellites overhead, plus the fact that th…

Bleh - the router example was bad. Sorry I didn't think that one through too much. I did an update though.

You're right on the signal degradation being significantly lower. But the LEO aspect means that there might be a higher percent of total loss due to rain (and probably adjacent signal interference).

Either way it's a cool problem.

Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites

#102

Post by Rooster61 »

soared wrote: post #93
Rooster61 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no stranger to the vast physical space at play here (amateur astronomer, here). I'm aware there is a LOT of room for this stuff to move around, but there is still a threshold, however high, to where the amount of debris would become dangerously numerous.

And you think that we can only fit <10k objects in an area larger than the surface of the earth?

<10K isn't the problem. It's when that 10K becomes much, much larger because of an unforeseen collision with an unrelated spacecraft/piece of space junk. It only takes one big collision to utterly litter that particular orbit, and thousands of slightly different orbits caused by the new trajectories of the various bits of the original spacecraft.

Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites

#103

Post by Rooster61 »

hwillis wrote: post #100
soared wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you think that we can only fit <10k objects in an area larger than the surface of the earth?

At any one time there are usually <10k airplanes in the sky,and they still hit each other sometimes despite going 23x slower than satellites

To be fair, a lot of that is because of the fact that planes follow paths that are designed to keep collisions from happening, but aren't always adhered to.

Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites

#105

Post by Rebelgecko »

thinkcontext wrote: post #78

The fact that SpaceX can piggyback on its own customers' launches to put these in orbit is a significant advantage over competing communication constellations. Depending on the cost of their satellites it might make sense to use launching them as a means of testing the upper limits of reusability of their rockets. IE, they might not want to risk a customer payload on a rocket that has made 10 launches. But if they ar…

I would be surprised if they launch many of the satellites on customer launches. They have some very specific orbits, and are planning on dropping the satellites off in orbits much lower than where they will actually be operating. It would probably be more fuel efficient to drop off a bunch of them in the right inclination all at once, then boost them up into spaced out orbits.

Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites

#106

Post by bargl »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #54
bargl wrote: post #33

This is such a cool problem. We already have a ton of Geo sat which can do this kind of communication but they are super expensive and have a limited bandwidth. These satellites will actually have a ton of limitations in how much data they can send around and how they'll have to balance out their signals. Geo are easier to point to because, well they don't move. But these are going to be moving and changing all the t…

My knowledge of satellite internet is circa 2004 when I was in the desert of Iraq. For the client premises equipment it's a hard problem but entirely solvable. Frequency hoping radios have been around a long time. Link bonding has been around a long time. Which satellites will be in view, where, and when is knowable. I think the harder part will be the backhaul... in space. I'm curious if they'll use beam shaping ant…

There is a startup called... googling... Kymeta. That is creating shape changing satellites for cars, planes, and ships.

Encryption might be handled by default with the https nature of the web now. But it'll just make https even more important going forward. It would also leave a lot of meta data open to sniffing which I don't think people would want either.

Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites

#107

Post by dr_orpheus »

Rooster61 wrote: post #98
_ph_ wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX recently updated their plans to put most satellites between 300 and 400km. That ensures a quick deorbit of the satellites and debris and cuts down the ping times.

Interesting. That does make me feel a bit more secure about the whole thing, but it does raise the question of how much they will need to invest in orbital upkeep/replacement of decayed spacecraft. I can see this getting expensive quick.

Definitely expensive, but it is likely still much less expensive than putting all of the satellites in to the higher orbit. It takes a lot more fuel to get the satellites in to the higher orbit, as well as still having enough fuel to get it back down to de-orbit the satellite.

Plus, in the ~1100 km orbit you are getting in to the lower Van Allen belt where the radiation will degrade electronics much more quickly. This can be mitigated with radiation-resistant parts and more shielding, but it adds a lot more cost.

Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites

#108

Post by avar »

TrueDuality wrote: post #20
zjaffee wrote: post #3

Does anyone have any context on what sort of internet speeds satellite internet has been benchmarked to provide. I can't imagine the latency being anywhere near good enough to do many of the high bandwidth things people use the internet for today.

There were recently two simulations done on possible latencies based on the FCC filings. You can find the video simulations in the links at the bottom of this post. You can see international links that have latencies lower than the existing internet by a significant margin. Unfortunately neither of those simulations take into account that the first iteration has been changed to only use radio and no laser links. [0]:…

The first video mentions at 6m55s[1] that as part of the third phase they're deploying satellites in high inclination orbits, among other reasons to provide coverage for Alaska, since this is an FCC requirement.

I wonder if it's exclusively because of that reason, and if so that the reason international customers will enjoy coverage at high northern and southern latitudes is because of the accident of history that the US ended up acquiring Alaska, and that there's some FCC regulation that says you need to provide coverage for all 50 states.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdKNCBrkZQ4#t=6m55s

Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites

#109

Post by baq »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #43
napsterbr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, same here (Brazil). I suppose SpaceX plans to start with us-only offerings. I also suppose it will take a while until it reaches developing countries. Does anyone have a better take on this?

The satellites are not stationary, but go around the earth. This means that to get good coverage in the US, they actually have to provide good coverage everywhere near the same latitudes (on both sides of the equator). Since the satellites in the southern hemisphere will have nothing better to do and have less demand, they are probably going to start rolling out service everywhere they can at the same time. Most of B…

Frequencies aren’t free, spacex will need to buy the rights for each country separately and that costs serious money. Unless they somehow don’t have to do that for whatever reason...

Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites

#110

Post by JshWright »

hwillis wrote: post #100
soared wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you think that we can only fit <10k objects in an area larger than the surface of the earth?

At any one time there are usually <10k airplanes in the sky,and they still hit each other sometimes despite going 23x slower than satellites

The vast majority of those collisions occur in areas where planes are forced to congregate (around airports, etc).
Post reply on HN