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

121–130 of 290 posts

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

#121

Post by dzhiurgis »

aportnoy wrote: post #30
creeble wrote: post #22

Curious how this will pan out. It's a shocking contrast to be in or near a city and have broadband speeds, and then be just a few dozen miles outside one and have... literally nothing. I just loaned my Iridium phone to a friend who was going to the jungle, and although he was able to make the data connection work, even doing email at 2400 baud(!) proved useless. Inmarsat is faster, but vastly more expensive. Outside…

Iridium already employs SpaceX for their launches.

What's perplexing is why Iridium is not doing way more. They are essentially just letting SpaceX to cannibalise them. Sure, they don't have fancy rockets, but still can scale their satellite net before Elon catches up with sat tech or outsource launches to even cheaper Indian launch provider.

p.s. the story of Iridium and how they recovered is quite amazing.

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

#122

Post by ceejayoz »

TenJack wrote: post #18

Do they need more than US approval to launch satellites into international space?

Per the Outer Space Treaty, no. Under it, space is free for the use and exploration of all countries. The US is liable for SpaceX in-space fuckups, though - if they crash a satellite into something, the US is responsible.

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

#123

Post by dzhiurgis »

PeterisP wrote: post #116
creeble wrote: post #22

Curious how this will pan out. It's a shocking contrast to be in or near a city and have broadband speeds, and then be just a few dozen miles outside one and have... literally nothing. I just loaned my Iridium phone to a friend who was going to the jungle, and although he was able to make the data connection work, even doing email at 2400 baud(!) proved useless. Inmarsat is faster, but vastly more expensive. Outside…

It depends on what you mean by "email". "Doing email" as in SMTP/POP at 2400 baud is feasible, "doing email" as in accessing a https webmail service is not. You can communicate effectively over 2400 baud if (and only if) you use protocols and services designed for low bandwidth; luckily we have those protocols built and tested, even if we have mostly abandoned some of them.

Are you actually suggesting dropping SSL? Sure, Iridium is somewhat encrypted and indeed provide its own Facebook and Twitter apps.

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

#124

Post by throwahey »

Rooster61 wrote: post #91
ubercore wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, check out the video explaining the orbits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=AdKNCBrkZQ4... Doing some quick math, the shell in which they'll be orbiting has a surface area of 373,367,808km. With ~7000 satellites, an even distribution would leave them 533,382 km between satellites. All the satellites have station keeping thrusters to keep them in LEO with drag. Keeping them from running into eac…

Sure, but this assumes nothing ever collides with one and causes debris to be introduced to the web. The web itself will clearly be ok as long as it remains intact, but if something does cause one of these to RUD catastrophically, we now have debris following a similar, but just different enough orbit to be dangerous.

You won't find an answer to your question because you don't seem willing to drop your alarmist attitude.

There is just far too much space for 100k objects, let alone 10k to ever run the risk of collission. These satellites are all meant to be in line-of-sight. They will communicate with optics as opposed or in conjunction to radio.

You fear unforseen space particles destroying one and causing a chain reaction. Why don't you hold that same fear for existing satelittes which typically operate at an orbit with far lower decay rate? The orbit for StarLink is very low, small particles would not sustain their energy long enough to be a risk factor. The StarLink sats maintain orbit with fuel, everything else without fuel in that orbit will fall. The chance that a particle will end up in the same orbit, on the same plane, at the same time is astronomically low.

Your comments just echo the same type of delusions of people who think in their brillance they've found problems others have not foreseen. SpaceX is really just full of amateurs you ought to submit your findings.

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

#125

Post by throwahey »

gsich wrote: post #117
phkahler wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Think about switching your router every 10 minutes. Your cell phone switches towers all the time while you're on the road. My cellphone (republic) switches from WiFi to cellular network mid-call if I'm on it when I leave a building. This is not a new problem.

>My cellphone (republic) switches from WiFi to cellular network mid-call if I'm on it when I leave a building. This is not a new problem. Networking technology switching is unrelated to a call, which always uses cellular.

His network probably allows Wi-Fi calling and text messaging. So it would be switching.

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

#126

Post by Rebelgecko »

craftyguy wrote: post #49
detritus wrote: post #41

This is probably a stupid thing to ask, but: Could this setup be hacked to provide a loose form of GPS?

You need more than just any satellites to provide GPS. Each of them needs a very precise atomic clock (among other things I'm sure I'm not aware of).

You can build GPS (well, a GNSS would be more accurate) system without atomic clocks.

One way to do so requires user equipment that can transmit back to the satellites, but that will already be the case for SpaceX's customers.

You can also use Doppler measurements to get your location, although this tends to be less accurate, especially if you're moving quickly

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

#127

Post by dzhiurgis »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #71
dr_orpheus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latency from the distance light travels does not vary that much. The rest of the ~600 ms latency is caused by the same thing as latency on ground systems (routers, etc.). And the processors on spacecraft are not particularly fast.

Who builds routers that go in space? Cisco? That's got to be some crazy hardware.

Apparently Elon is gonna try use consumer hardware or build their own, thats kinda part of it's cost advantage.

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

#128

Post by thatfunkymunki »

gsich wrote: post #117
phkahler wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Think about switching your router every 10 minutes. Your cell phone switches towers all the time while you're on the road. My cellphone (republic) switches from WiFi to cellular network mid-call if I'm on it when I leave a building. This is not a new problem.

>My cellphone (republic) switches from WiFi to cellular network mid-call if I'm on it when I leave a building. This is not a new problem. Networking technology switching is unrelated to a call, which always uses cellular.

my cellular provider (T-Mobile) uses UMA/GAN to switch between wifi enabled cellular network access and cellular network access proper on the fly

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

#129

Post by Rebelgecko »

Is there anyone who knows more about radio stuff that can explain why they want to have both Ku and V band for users? It it just a matter of having more spectrum? Or are some bands more suited to crowded areas, like a city where there might be lots of customers sharing bandwidth? Do you need different hardware for using the different frequencies?

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

#130

Post by astrodust »

Rooster61 wrote: post #89
dr_orpheus wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true of the orbit that the SpaceX satellites are going in to. LEO is a bit of a general term that covers altitudes anywhere from 100 km to 2000 km. While it is true that something at 400 km altitude will deorbit in a few months, they will be orbiting at an altitude of 1100-1300 km. At that altitude it will take hundreds of years from them to deorbit. The drag goes down exponentially as you get in to highe…

Not to mention a struck satellite (probably) no longer has the capability to deorbit, at least not in a controlled manner.

Little pieces of smashed satellites are not obligated by the rules of physics to decay.

An example of how long shit can stay in space: A Saturn V booster rocket is still out there, slowly orbiting the planet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J002E3

Post reply on HN