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

Starlink Maritime

starlink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 530 posts

Re: Starlink Maritime

#121

Post by intrasight »

wolrah wrote: post #31
adingus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I didn't know that coverage was limited. I assumed satellite == pretty much all of earth.

> Interesting. I didn't know that coverage was limited. I assumed satellite == pretty much all of earth. The low orbits that give Starlink its low latency compared to geostationary satellite internet services also mean that each satellite can only see a small part of the earth at any given time. This is why they need so many satellites to provide reliable coverage. Right now each satellite has to communicate directly…

> Supposedly every satellite launched in 2022 has the capability

Additionally there's the issue that their operating licenses don't allow inter-satellite communications.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#122

Post by notahacker »

mjlee wrote: post #75
notahacker wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commercial and military vessels have contracts with Iridium/Inmarsat etc for mission critical stuff. An extra box which based on current coverage map provides GSM level coast-only coverage of unproven reliability doesn't hold much appeal, even factoring in how expensive satellite broadband is.

These vessels still have people on board who want to watch YouTube. This will be amazing for retaining crew while sitting at anchor outside of Panama for day 27 of who knows how long. You can prepare for a 7 day cruise between ports when you're going to be pretty busy anyway. The madness of seeing land and not being able to do anything for weeks on end is hard to describe.

> The madness of seeing land and not being able to do anything for weeks on end is hard to describe.

I sat through a Vodafone presentation at a maritime comms conference a couple of years ago and he quoted just how high a percentage of the world's commercial shipping traffic was within range of his LTE networks. The ability to provide high speed internet within sight of [most] land has been around for a while, at lower costs than Starlink. If providers haven't added it to their crew internet provision, it's not because they've been waiting for Elon.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#123

Post by remorses »

BurningFrog wrote: post #86
elif wrote: post #78

Wow they are now clearly selling a product that depends upon starlink 2.0 satellites which depend upon starship for launch. Starship tests haven't even attempted a static fire on their launch platform let alone a stacked launch attempt. Not to mention, their launch calculations include re-use based upon a completely invented and also untested catching apparatus. Talk about going all in...

Why do they depend on Starship for launch? Are the new satellites too big for the current rockets?

Yes, and you cannot use current starlink in middle of the ocean

Re: Starlink Maritime

#124

Post by dreamcompiler »

BurningFrog wrote: post #77
_Microft wrote: post #7

The maritime coverage map shows coastal coverage around countries with inland coverage right now, i.e. they are bouncing the connection via one of their satellites to a nearby groundstation. Starting in Q4/2022 they want to cover mid-latitudes around the globe. That might mean that they plan to enable inter-satellite links then? (This is a bit surprising - on one hand, this step extends coverage towards higher and lo…

> That might mean that they plan to enable inter-satellite links then? Or maybe they'll have stationary ships with "ground"-stations until the inter-satellite thing is working.

That wouldn't solve the problem. Those ships would still need a backhaul.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#125

Post by uf00lme »

cjensen wrote: post #41
adingus wrote: post #4

"$5,000/mo with a one-time hardware cost of $10,000 for two high performance terminals." wow! Why cant you just take your normal starlink with you on your boat? Don't people do that with RVs?

People do install normal starlink on boats [1]. The $10K/$5K price tag really has me scratching my head about what they are thinking. Does look like they plan to cover the entire ocean, so at least there is a specific benefit they can point to. They're definitely giving up a lot of everyday coastal business in hopes of making it up with a few whales. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHHCK6aARn0

Number one complaint from seafarers is lack of good internet. Ship owners are always looking for cheap ways to keep this crew happy and loyal, they will be lining up to get this installed.

If the pricing is that low for commercial customers then it will sell out before you know it.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#126

Post by madengr »

deelowe wrote: post #50
cronix wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like they added a gimbal or something?

Starlink uses beam forming. It shouldn't need a gimbal.

Doesn't the normal Starlink have an Az-El motor for rough positioning? Beam steering only gets you so far, and the more off-boresight you get, the worse the performance.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#127

Post by elif »

ianschmitz wrote: post #104
elif wrote: post #78

Wow they are now clearly selling a product that depends upon starlink 2.0 satellites which depend upon starship for launch. Starship tests haven't even attempted a static fire on their launch platform let alone a stacked launch attempt. Not to mention, their launch calculations include re-use based upon a completely invented and also untested catching apparatus. Talk about going all in...

Do you have a citation for them being too big for SpaceX’s current rocket lineup? Very curious about this

Elon on everyday astronaut:

"Falcon neither has the volume nor the mass [to] orbit capability required for Starlink 2.0," Musk said.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#128

Post by geekrax »

WJW wrote: post #66
Cyberdog wrote: post #48

The second sentence in the paragraph at the top of the home page is pricing. Bravo. All web sites selling a product should make the pricing this prominent. At the least, have a pricing page with actual prices on it and not a "Call us for pricing" call to inaction. Me spending time on your site researching a product which turns out to be out of my price range is just wasting your time and mine, and I don't like you wh…

This is something SpaceX does extremely well in general. Check out https://www.spacex.com/rideshare/ for example: fill in your orbit, payload mass and earliest launch date and it will give you a quote. This is to me the gold standard of what I would love to have (but is remarkably difficult to get) from any industrial supplier.

Wow! A form to send a payload to space is faster to fill than sending an envelope through USPS.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#129

Post by stephbu »

SergeAx wrote: post #118

Starlink RV is $135/m and looks exactly the same. I wonder what happens if I put one on the boat? Will Starlink turn it off for usage violation?

Seems unlikely, more probable is that you’ll have other problems. I suspect there are other differences in the equipment and service delivery to tolerate ocean conditions.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#130

Post by usrn »

mdasen wrote: post #102
cjensen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do install normal starlink on boats [1]. The $10K/$5K price tag really has me scratching my head about what they are thinking. Does look like they plan to cover the entire ocean, so at least there is a specific benefit they can point to. They're definitely giving up a lot of everyday coastal business in hopes of making it up with a few whales. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHHCK6aARn0

I think Starlink is looking for more money. They've raised prices on everyone 11% after about a year. They've introduced Starlink RV at a 23% premium over their regular Starlink service (and a 36% over the original Starlink price point). I think Starlink doesn't want to use too heavy a hand with customers using their equipment not as intended (as is the case with most companies), but it does look like they're trying…

I've seen videos of people using starlink on boats. Without compensation for the boat movement it performs poorly/unpredictably. I really wonder if they'll just tolerate the people that do it anyway since they're unlikely to convert those to the higher price point for something that works well.
Post reply on HN