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

201–210 of 530 posts

Re: Starlink Maritime

#201

Post by SahAssar »

usrn wrote: post #106
xoa wrote: 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…

Interesting. If I moved on to my boat and managed to get by with the 5GB option I'd be just about breaking even because of how high rent is.

Presumably you'd spend most of your time close or in harbor/coast, which would mean that you would have other ways of internet access (starlink RV, normal 4/5g, harbor wifi, etc).

I'm of course guessing that if you moved onto your boat you wouldn't spend the majority of the time far out at sea.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#202

Post by walrus01 »

dweekly wrote: post #110
867-5309 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Don't forget Inmarsat. https://www.inmarsat.com/en/solutions-services/maritime/serv... Or Globalstar. https://www.globalstar.com/en-us/blog/articles/satellite-sol...

globalstar is a bad joke and not a viable option for maritime services (or over-ocean aviation services) because unlike iridium or inmarsat, its satellite terminal-to-earth-station architecture is a bent pipe.

there is zero globalstar mid ocean coverage.

there is a reason you will see lots of competing options for people integrating the iridium embedded modems into things designed to go on top of $40 million business jets and just about zero globalstar.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#203

Post by jwagenet »

_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…

Call me confused, but if these satellites are not geostationary, why are the both the inland coverage and coastal coverage mostly limited to political boundaries? Shouldn't coverage be available anywhere there are satellites overhead?

Re: Starlink Maritime

#204

Post by extheat »

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?

Seems like you can according to Starlink employees - https://twitter.com/JoeyScarantino/status/154515954230810214...

https://twitter.com/joeyscarantino/status/154516393155921510...

Re: Starlink Maritime

#205

Post by tvszzzz »

jwagenet wrote: post #203
_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…

Call me confused, but if these satellites are not geostationary, why are the both the inland coverage and coastal coverage mostly limited to political boundaries? Shouldn't coverage be available anywhere there are satellites overhead?

Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it legally possible, yet. They still need regulatory approvals where they operate because EM spectrum is a public resource.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#206

Post by notahacker »

xoa wrote: post #112
notahacker wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a BGAN terminal competitor until and unless the intersat mesh rolls out though. At the moment it's a competitor for specialist yacht 4G packages, and whilst they're also eyewateringly expensive to anyone benchmarking them against mobile phone contracts, Starlink certainly isn't undercutting them.

Which they've now put a hard number on for end of this year in primary latitude band and global first quarter of next year, and they've gone ahead and filed with FCC for permission to activate polar satellites which depend on it [0]. If we were talking years out sure, but this is an early launch for something they're promising in ---- 0: https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=...

We'll see if they their mesh fulfils its promises in the next couple of years. If it does and there's ocean coverage which is reasonably robust, I think we'll see prices rise accordingly though...

Re: Starlink Maritime

#207

Post by jcims »

jwagenet wrote: post #203
_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…

Call me confused, but if these satellites are not geostationary, why are the both the inland coverage and coastal coverage mostly limited to political boundaries? Shouldn't coverage be available anywhere there are satellites overhead?

It’s purely a regulatory issue.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#208

Post by [deleted] »

aml183 wrote: 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?

[deleted]

Re: Starlink Maritime

#209

Post by adrr »

shmoe wrote: post #96
yardie wrote: post #27

"$5,000/mo with a one-time hardware cost of $10,000 for two high performance terminals." Definitely aimed at the champagne caviar, St Barts crowd rather than the hard scrabble, cruiser on a fixed income. In other terms, Iridium Go is still the best value around and truly global for the time being.

There's very little value with Iridium -- do you work for them or something?

I thought they went bankrupt and had to deorbit all the satellites so I googled them. They have 1.7M subscribers. Seems they are doing something right.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#210

Post by maccam94 »

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…

> as far as I'm aware it hasn't been openly demonstrated to work yet

They did a test in late 2020[0], and all launches since June 2021 have been Starlink v1.5 with lasers[1].

0: https://wccftech.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-laser-test/

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starlink_launches

Post reply on HN