Live data from Hacker News

Starlink Maritime

starlink.com

191–200 of 530 posts

Re: Starlink Maritime

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Starlink v1.5 has lasers, and that is what they have been launching since January of last year.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#192
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iridium Go is designed to hit a price point. Whats the cheapest way to get data out in the middle of the Atlantic and is basically plug and play. It has leapfrogged SSB packet radio as the preferred, low cost data service. Also data is not charged in minutes, it's theoretically unlimited. The voice plans are charged in minutes and I don't think worth it. Just like the RO water-makers in the past, I believe this is th…

> Also data is not charged in minutes, it's theoretically unlimited. If you buy the 'medium plan' for $119/month [1] you get 150 Minutes of 'Data, Standard Voice or combination of both' and can buy additional data for US$0.42/min. And the 'light plan' [2] at $57/month includes just 5 minutes. Data seems to a "call via the Iridium GO! Access number" like old school dial-up. It's only if you buy the 'heavy plan' for $1…

If we're comparing price to a $5,000/month offering, I think it's totally reasonable to compare it to the $149/month package of Iridium.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#193
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.

You can approximately half the power consumption by eliminating starlink's wifi router and using a DC POE injector to power the square terminal. I have not done it yet but have seen others report ~30 watts.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the mammoth price delta over RV is because it'll be usable offshore (starting Q4 this year) and presumably that requires some more complex satellite-to-satellite data exchange (which at a guess they want to limit usage of until it works well. Sure, just like Tesla Autopilot is right around the corner, Starship will be flying this year, the Cybertruck has been released 2 years ago etc.

This is different. The problem of providing offshore satcom with LEOsats is a quantified engineering problem. IOW, the industry knows quite well what technologies will solve the problem and Starlink has those technologies in place. The only unknown is how fast, accurate, and reliable the laser-based intersat comms will be. None of that is true for the self-driving car problem. That problem still contains a multitude…

> The only unknown is how fast, accurate, and reliable the laser-based intersat comms will be.

Those communications are still an unsolved and hugely difficult engineering problem. It will be awesome if SpaceX has actually achieved this: getting the kind of precision required to communicate over direct laser links between specks of dust hundreds of km apart traveling at thousands of km per hour is no easy feat.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#195
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

They've launched satellites that have lasers, but I don't think they've actually demonstrated they have the ability to aim those lasers precisely enough to actually communicate between satellites in orbit.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#196
post #68

Always a treat to see the urban HN crowd comment with great confidence on anything outside of their immediate area. While hopefully eventually SpaceX will bring this down and be more disruptive, right now they simply cannot possibly meet demand, they are very rightfully anxious to get revenue going for Starlink, they're in a completely unique level of performance for maritime, and HELLO FOLKS, here is a taste of what…

Having worked in two way satellite for many years it is always very amusing to see the HN crowd who've never implemented remote terminals in physical reality... They should definitely go price some Inmarsat I-4 or I-5 based BGAN services or gyro stabilized maritime C/Ku/Ka band VSAT terminals before thinking this is expensive. You can easily spend $130,000 on a fairly basic geostationary VSAT terminal for something l…

Thanks so much for your comments over the years on this, I've read a lot of them with great interest and to my edification since I'm not remotely as deep in the field as you are. It's a little frustrating though to see comments just rushing to compare it to their cable modem or something, like even if one has zero knowledge surely there'd be some intellectual curiosity over the cool and difficult problems one would have to solve to get packets to the middle of an ocean and back? If going to geostationary like ViaSat that's ~36000km out, that's a long ways for a wireless signal! The conditions are fairly intense, ships travel all over the place through massive storms and temperature differences and very heavy seas, saltwater is massively corrosive. Wondering about that would lead someone to a bit of basic searching and in turn to pricing, platform stabilization etc. Or wondering how Starlink can possibly track LEO sats, just 500km away but moving at something like 17000 miles per hour, and then learning about electronically steerable phased arrays. The terminals themselves already represent a really cool achievement in bringing something like that down to consumer prices. Heck, I'd love to see that brought elsewhere, it'd be a treat for terrestrial 11-60 GHz PtP/PtMP links even if they could just perfectly aim themselves and correct with near zero technician requirements, merely roughly pointing it in the right direction, for $500. Doing intersat optical links is also amazing, everything about the system really helps to reinforce other aspects, it's a heck of a vision executed well.

"[A]imed at the champagne caviar, St Barts crowd" really? :(. And Starlink is an amazing experience, it's been life changing for a few clients even just in rural New England. The only "high speed" improvement they'd gotten over 20 years was the offer of a 10 Mbps connection for $300/month. People dump on even regular Starlink pricing anyway. Having to live constantly on dial up or regular MEO/HEO satellite then moving to Starlink is eye opening already and gave me at least a tiny taste of what it might be like for people on ships or platforms way out there (I've done multiweek zero connected expeditions too but that's not doing "regular business" or work it's a different mental space). And at least in this case it's possible to drive an hour and then have a solid net connection somewhere, so like for big software downloads one could work around it a little. No such luck at sea.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#197
post #164

I work in the space industry and follow SATCOM closely. This is a very competitive space. Companies like Viasat, Iridium and Inmarsat already work in this vertical. SpaceX beats all these companies from a marketing perspective, but the big question is will a LEO operator provide better coverage than a GEO operator?

I would ask two things: a) if you've ever personally lived for months or years at a time 100% dependent upon geostationary based services costing anywhere from $165/mo to $15,000 a month or more, for internet access and links to the outside world b) if you've personally used a starlink terminal the actual coverage isn't there yet for things like mid ocean, because starlink satellites in the present architecture need…

You are absolutely spot on. The market isn’t competitive, it’s artificial highway robbery to even be in business. The entry requirements and expenses are insanely high, preventing a lot of competition to begin with, and the few players are free to drive up their prices to disgusting altitudes while providing services of disgusting quality. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they have agreements going on between themselves. SpaceX’s going to have a field day and brutally rip some inflated executives out of their cozy decade-old comfort zone.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#198
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would ask two things: a) if you've ever personally lived for months or years at a time 100% dependent upon geostationary based services costing anywhere from $165/mo to $15,000 a month or more, for internet access and links to the outside world b) if you've personally used a starlink terminal the actual coverage isn't there yet for things like mid ocean, because starlink satellites in the present architecture need…

You are absolutely spot on. The market isn’t competitive, it’s artificial highway robbery to even be in business. The entry requirements and expenses are insanely high, preventing a lot of competition to begin with, and the few players are free to drive up their prices to disgusting altitudes while providing services of disgusting quality. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they have agreements going on between themselv…

To be fair, a non vertically integrated geostationary-satellite-owning company like intelsat, ses, eutelsat or arabsat or similar has little to no control over how much Boeing charges for a fully equipped 702 series satellite bus, or the disposable rocket launch costs.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#199
post #164

I work in the space industry and follow SATCOM closely. This is a very competitive space. Companies like Viasat, Iridium and Inmarsat already work in this vertical. SpaceX beats all these companies from a marketing perspective, but the big question is will a LEO operator provide better coverage than a GEO operator?

Any reason to believe that SpaceX isn't capable of getting global coverage using intra-satellite links? Assuming this, and they've already proven they can do it, SpaceX will be strictly better than any other solution out there.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ships routinely run with AIS off in peace time. This was the case in at least one of the recent US Navy collisions as I recall.

I think you should be able to just turn off Star Link in those instances too
Post reply on HN