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

431–440 of 530 posts

Re: Starlink Maritime

#431

Post by kalleboo »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #286
ww520 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For latency and bandwidth, LEO beats GEO hands down.

They're really completely different product categories and shouldn't even be compared.

It seems like it's a lot more complicated than "LEO vs GEO" and they are very much worth comparing.

You have LEO stuff like Iridium that is targeted at pocket-sized terminals at very low bandwidth

You have GEO stuff like Sky Muster with large, fixed dishes, high latency and decent bandwidth

Then you have Starlink with large, fixed dishes, low latency and high bandwidth

Re: Starlink Maritime

#432

Post by kalleboo »

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #238
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?

I’ve done work video calls using my friend’s starlink wifi on a remote mountain, and it’s unlimited bandwidth so this didn’t cost anything beyond the flat $110 monthly fee. Are geosynchronous services even capable of doing the bandwidth and latency needed for a two-way video call? And if so, how much would it cost?

My parents are on Sky Muster in Australia and it works fine for them, we call them a couple times a month and the latency isn't amazing but I've had worse calls with people on DSL.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#433

Post by walrus01 »

kalleboo wrote: post #430
walrus01 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at the consumer level under $200/mo, assuming what we're talking about a consumer viasat/hughesnet/wildblue type low cost terminal and service, what you're getting is 32:1 or 64:1 or worse oversubscribed

Isn't your garden-variety GPON fiber also 32:1 oversubscribed, and cable internet even worse? It doesn't seem like a very useful metric.

The bandwidth possible in the terahertz size "channels" in singlemode fiber is incredibly larger than the channel size and modulations needed for rf to/from geostationary.

If you look at the per cpe traffic charts for each of the 32 customers on your typical 32:1 oversubscribed GPON connection, each individual one doesn't move that much traffic at all, relative to a chart that's scaled to 1Gbps on the Y axis.

With very basic CWDM you can push a ridiculous amount of data through just one strand of good sm fiber.

Docsis3/3.1 cable internet is worse because it's reliant on asymmetric use of downstream rf channels and much more limited bandwidth in the coax (though, they do still achieve 2048 and 4096qam!)

If you have a very small piece of rf spectrum like some tiny fraction of one 36MHz satellite transponder and you then oversubscribe it 32:1 or worse and also have to use fairly rudimentary loose modulations (very poor bps/Hz compared to terrestrial wired line modulations) at geostationary link budget distance, yeah, it's gonna suck.

It's more like, imagine you had fifteen people with laptops all connected to a single 802.11n AP from 12 years ago and you're all trying to torrent the latest 5GB debian install iso at the same time.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#434

Post by D_Guidi »

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?

as you might know, it's also about bandwidth and latency. LEO satellites can be an enabler for a lot of remote operation, IF (and this is a big IF) latency remain small also with intersatellite links, and connection reliability is comparable to GEO

Re: Starlink Maritime

#435

Post by D_Guidi »

ww520 wrote: post #254
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?

For latency and bandwidth, LEO beats GEO hands down.

I'm curious to understand if and when inter-satellite links can reduce the latency of a starlink connection

Re: Starlink Maritime

#436

Post by bvoq »

YES! I've been waiting for this. Current starlink systems are a) region-locked (communicate to the same ground station) and b) require a still surface. This is great :-)

Re: Starlink Maritime

#437

Post by plq »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #427
shaklee3 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

geo companies don't care much about launch cost since it's infrequent, and SpaceX has not shown starlink has a path to be profitable. I know it's the cool thing to do to love SpaceX, but separate the launch from the satellites. the latter hasn't shown it's sustainable unless there's a large influx of government subsidies.

I'm just going to throw some numbers out here. edit: MASSIVE miscalculation fixed! Let's say they have 12k satellites. With oversubscription at 10? and a third of time over land? but 20gbps capacity for 200mbps connections, you get 333 users per satellite. 12k gives you 4 million users, at $100/mo or $1.2k/y. I'm going to drop that to $80/mo because Starlink need to pay for backhaul, so let's say $1k/y because it's r…

I came across this guy recently:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2vuMzGhc1cg&feature=youtu.be

Looks to me that you forgot about the consumer-side terminal.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#438

Post by me_me_me »

Mo3 wrote: post #197
walrus01 wrote: post #185

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…

> SpaceX’s going to have a field day and brutally rip some inflated executives out of their cozy decade-old comfort zone.

Not if they have to replace 100's of satelites due to their 4 years life spawn.

There are videos showing calculations and how crazy starlink is from business perspective. Money doesn't add up in long term.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#439

Post by govg »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #427
shaklee3 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

geo companies don't care much about launch cost since it's infrequent, and SpaceX has not shown starlink has a path to be profitable. I know it's the cool thing to do to love SpaceX, but separate the launch from the satellites. the latter hasn't shown it's sustainable unless there's a large influx of government subsidies.

I'm just going to throw some numbers out here. edit: MASSIVE miscalculation fixed! Let's say they have 12k satellites. With oversubscription at 10? and a third of time over land? but 20gbps capacity for 200mbps connections, you get 333 users per satellite. 12k gives you 4 million users, at $100/mo or $1.2k/y. I'm going to drop that to $80/mo because Starlink need to pay for backhaul, so let's say $1k/y because it's r…

Do you mean 1000$ / mo? Because at 100$ / mo, your calculations seem to be off by 10?

Re: Starlink Maritime

#440

Post by gilbertbw »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #427
shaklee3 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

geo companies don't care much about launch cost since it's infrequent, and SpaceX has not shown starlink has a path to be profitable. I know it's the cool thing to do to love SpaceX, but separate the launch from the satellites. the latter hasn't shown it's sustainable unless there's a large influx of government subsidies.

I'm just going to throw some numbers out here. edit: MASSIVE miscalculation fixed! Let's say they have 12k satellites. With oversubscription at 10? and a third of time over land? but 20gbps capacity for 200mbps connections, you get 333 users per satellite. 12k gives you 4 million users, at $100/mo or $1.2k/y. I'm going to drop that to $80/mo because Starlink need to pay for backhaul, so let's say $1k/y because it's r…

I might be misunderstanding you, but $100/mo is $1.2k/y not $12k/y.
Post reply on HN