Starlink Maritime • Hacker News Board

Re: Starlink Maritime

#141

Post by jml78 » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 9:19 PM UTC

867-5309 wrote: post #52

Someone1234 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iridium Go is 2.4 Kbits/s compared with 350 Mbps here, and data is charged in minutes (i.e. the slower/worse the connection the more it costs). Apples and oranges. Iridium GO is cheap, but that's all you can really say positively about it. It is arguably not even offering "internet" in the normal sense, since loading a website would be incredibly expensive/bad and is therefore restricted to low data rate messaging an…

I doubt there are many other options for internet in the ocean

People are using starlink on their boats currently for the standard price plus $30 to allow movement

Re: Starlink Maritime

#142

Post by dzhiurgis » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 9:20 PM UTC

rngname22 wrote: post #10

venti wrote: post #2

Is anything know about the power consumption of the Starlink antenna? Does the maritime version use less power than the conventional unit? The fixed-location version of Starlink consumes around 60 to 100 W constantly which is problem if you want to e.g. use solar panels on a sail boat to supply the device.

If you can afford $5000 a month for internet maybe you're more likely on a Silent 60 (17 kWp solar) than a Catalina 30.

FWIW if they ever to offer 10 Mb/s plans for ~$150/mo, the power use becomes a question again.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#143

Post by throwaway742 » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 9:21 PM UTC

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…

My favorite is when they have a form to fill out for them to contact you and the form explicitly asks your preferred method of contact. Despite selecting email they immediately disregard your preference and call you.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#144

Post by elif » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 9:21 PM UTC

gamegoblin wrote: post #132

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...

The V1.5 Starlink sats have the laser interconnects, and I suspect they would be able to launch enough of those with Falcon 9 to cover at least the most popular corridors (North America Europe crossing).

Good catch!

They have almost 1000 laser satellites up now. I had no idea.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#145

Post by pclmulqdq » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 9:21 PM UTC

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...

Musk companies have a habit of going all in, then claiming they didn't when the bill comes due. So far it has worked, but I wouldn't bet on the coverage expanding much for the next 2 years.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#146

Post by sillysaurusx » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 9:22 PM UTC

Can anyone explain how the ping is so low on starlink? I always assumed satellite internet was always going to be inferior for online gaming, but everything I find online says that starlink is great for it.

I guess I don’t have a specific question. It’s just one of those engineering marvels that I never thought I’d see. No wires, but still frag people at <90ms ping.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#147

Post by notahacker » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 9:23 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #115

WJW wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be a naval officer in the Dutch navy, this is the type of capability that we would love to have. It was always a mess to divide satcom bandwidth between operational and recreational purposes, so if we could put all non-essential traffic on Starlink (for only 5k/month/ship too!) that would be a huge win and free up massive operational bandwidth on the more serious satcoms.

Would there be any concern that you are essentially advertising your location at all times to some third party corp? Or is that only a concern during certain times and you can just turn off the commercial system at that point?

All the existing commercial maritime comms providers will happily sell separate bandwidth for crew use, or let them meter/throttle it, so I assume the challenges the Dutch navy has with their existing setup are related to specific security and/or procurement restrictions preventing them from just installing the same solutions commercial vessels use. Probably less about broadcasting location and more about what is and isn't allowed on their vessels

Re: Starlink Maritime

#148

Post by wilg » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 9:23 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #49

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need any new development or that kind of stuff for wide coverage, just the intersatellite links, and they have launched 15 groups of them in the first 6 months of this year.

"just" the intersatellite links, which is research-level technology given the speeds, distances and precision required. Tesla Autopot also requires "just" a few software updates.

I think they've already launched the new satellites with laser links.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#149

Post by WJW » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 9:24 PM UTC

wefarrell wrote: post #136

kbenson wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would there be any concern that you are essentially advertising your location at all times to some third party corp? Or is that only a concern during certain times and you can just turn off the commercial system at that point?

All surface maritime vessels, military or not, need to advertise their location to anyone who can listen for the purpose of collision avoidance. If they didn't that would probably violate a treaty.

Military vessels are exempt from that particular treaty. That would not be a significant worry. But yes, when you go into serious operations, the ship typically enters "black hole" operations where all non-essential communications are blocked. In the ships we were at they just pulled the network cable for the non-operational comms, very effective at preventing anyone from emailing back home.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#150

Post by bexail » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 9:24 PM UTC

I have the regular $600 hardware and $135/month on my live-aboard sailboat on Sea of Cortez. Happy to answer any questions if you are considering getting one for your boat or RV.