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

31–40 of 530 posts

Re: Starlink Maritime

#31

Post by wolrah »

adingus wrote: post #8
plasticchris wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would only work near shore, this must mean they have some capability to go beyond the one hop to a station. Edit: from the coverage map it looks like this is only coastal waters…

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 to a uplink station, so it's only possible to provide coverage to areas where a satellite can simultaneously see the user and the uplink.

This is where SpaceX's planned inter-satellite link capability comes in to play, they claim they will be able to use lasers in a free-space optical network (think fiber without the fiber) to relay data directly from satellite to satellite, allowing service more than a single hop from a uplink station. This will also hypothetically allow for direct user to user connections over the satellite network that do not traverse the terrestrial internet, which would be huge for both military and business applications. Lots of words have been written about intercontinental high frequency trading for example.

Supposedly every satellite launched in 2022 has the capability but as far as I'm aware it hasn't been openly demonstrated to work yet. Making it work reliably within a single orbital ring is a hard problem and the claimed ability to cross-connect between adjacent rings is an absurdly hard problem. Neither are impossible, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#33

Post by cronix »

pigtailgirl wrote: post #5
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?

https://www.starlink.com/rv -- If I had to guess part of the reason would maybe be carrying capacity - a house that doesn't move is predictable - RVs & boats move so the per satellite bandwidth predictability of that class of object is lower - i think meaning the requirements for redundancy are higher - redundancy is expensive? - just a guess --

Starlink RV is only currently meant to be used while stationary and can't track while in motion, which is why the hardware is identical to the home unit. They're supposed to be coming out with new hardware that allows use while in motion. It was only a week ago that the FCC approved the application for "vehicles in motion."[1] It will be on airplanes as well, soon.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/30/fcc-approves-spacex-starlink...

Re: Starlink Maritime

#34

Post by RF_Savage »

happytiger wrote: post #21
kordlessagain wrote: post #14

Only $5k a month! What a bargain.

Yea, I found the price point really disappointing. This only makes sense for large commercial users - leaves cruisers and small commercial customers high and dry.

I wonder what Inmarsat or Viasat bill for comparable service and terminals.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#35

Post by Havoc »

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.

Still super cheap compared to what yachts are currently doing

Re: Starlink Maritime

#36

Post by dieselgate »

extheat wrote: post #16
roflyear wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the coverage map: https://api.starlink.com/public-files/maritime-coverage-map.... What a fucking joke. "coming soon" means nothing to me coming from a Musk company. Compare to the iridum network: https://www.groundcontrol.com/us/knowledge/calculators-and-m... Granted, iridium is much slower. But $5k a month for barely any coverage is an insult.

Do you think running Starlink is cheap? Something seems to have struck a nerve.

It’s only five boat units a month and ten boat units for setup. It’s no where near worth it for me because normal phone/wireless data works well where I sail (in addition to iridium network fwiw) - the prices would need to be at least an order (orders) of magnitude cheaper for me to even consider it. Not sure about parent comment though.

Boat ~~ bust out another thousand

Edit: I took parent comment as a joke but ya never know

Re: Starlink Maritime

#37

Post by baybal2 »

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.

It's better than InMarSat, or any other regional fixed satellite communication system big time

Re: Starlink Maritime

#38

Post by notahacker »

ok_dad wrote: post #28
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.

> Definitely aimed at the champagne caviar, St Barts crowd rather than the hard scrabble, cruiser on a fixed income. More like: commercial and military vessels

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.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#40

Post by bombcar »

pigtailgirl wrote: post #20
roflyear wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the coverage map: https://api.starlink.com/public-files/maritime-coverage-map.... What a fucking joke. "coming soon" means nothing to me coming from a Musk company. Compare to the iridum network: https://www.groundcontrol.com/us/knowledge/calculators-and-m... Granted, iridium is much slower. But $5k a month for barely any coverage is an insult.

-- coverage is literally perfect for anywhere I take my (imaginary) yacht! - south of france? check! italian riviera? check! miami? Check! LA? Check! $5k a month? In YachtLand $5/mth is pocket change --

Exactly. The customers who will buy this will add it alongside their existing Iridium setup, for faster speeds when able.
Post reply on HN