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

441–450 of 530 posts

Re: Starlink Maritime

#441

Post by Cthulhu_ »

xvilka wrote: post #345
_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…

Will constellation completion and intersatellite links expand the reach to polar areas as well? It would be a game changer for Arctic and Antarctic.

Looking at the orbits for Starlink, they are currently not flying over the north / south pole directly. I don't know if there's plans to do so later, probably if the investments start to pay off and they can afford more launches and sattelites. But for now it's a big money sink and I'm sure the service isn't yet paying for itself - if it ever will.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#442

Post by FeepingCreature »

gilbertbw wrote: post #440
FeepingCreature wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay, so I'm an idiot. That explains a lot.

Calculation fixed!

Re: Starlink Maritime

#443

Post by FeepingCreature »

plq wrote: post #437
FeepingCreature wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah they make a loss on it, but probably not a huge one. Call it half a year to a year of fees.

Can you tl;dw? I'm not watching 40 minutes of a video that has DEBUNKED in the title.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#444

Post by FeepingCreature »

govg wrote: post #439
FeepingCreature wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, dumb mistake, fixed. Still looks good but no longer quite so implausibly good.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#446

Post by cjrp »

dylan604 wrote: post #372
paranoidrobot wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would depend on how fast the internal relay latency is on the ground terminals. Geostationary satellites are up at around 35,000 km. Starlink is about 500-600km - you can get a whole lot of hops between Starlink satellites and terminals before you're looking at the same distance. There's talk that they might be able to use either existing terminals, or a special set of terminals to do this, without the need to dep…

>They're already in talks (trials, too I think) with Airlines to equip their aircraft with terminals. I'm sure commercial shipping companies would be interested too. Would an airplane using Starlink be more easily tracked in an emergency to avoid MH370 type of mystery?

Inmarsat (satelite phone provider) actually helped reduce the search radius based on their contact with MH370.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#447

Post by plq »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #443
plq wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah they make a loss on it, but probably not a huge one. Call it half a year to a year of fees. Can you tl;dw? I'm not watching 40 minutes of a video that has DEBUNKED in the title.

He claims the terminal costs at least 3× the retail price and will never make a profit because of it

He also claims that its product offering brings nothing new to the table compared to hughesnet and viasat which is wrong imo as offering 1/10th latency of these products is a gamechanger.

Sorry, I'd do better but I'm on mobile, I think it's worth a watch at 1.5×

Re: Starlink Maritime

#448

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Starlink Maritime

#449

Post by BoxOfRain »

spiderice wrote: post #342
roflyear wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter. No person outside the mega wealthy are paying for this.

How often do people who aren't mega wealthy find themselves in the middle of the ocean anyway? What non-wealthy person is even looking for this?

I'm planning on moving onto a sailing boat this year, I'd be very interested if it was something an mere mortal could afford but at that price I'm sticking to 5G mobile broadband. Marine Starlink would have given me a broader range of places I can stay (especially remote areas) but the cost is far too high.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#450

Post by FeepingCreature »

plq wrote: post #447
FeepingCreature wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah they make a loss on it, but probably not a huge one. Call it half a year to a year of fees. Can you tl;dw? I'm not watching 40 minutes of a video that has DEBUNKED in the title.

He claims the terminal costs at least 3× the retail price and will never make a profit because of it He also claims that its product offering brings nothing new to the table compared to hughesnet and viasat which is wrong imo as offering 1/10th latency of these products is a gamechanger. Sorry, I'd do better but I'm on mobile, I think it's worth a watch at 1.5×

Of course the terminals will not make a profit, they're a loss leader.

And yes, um, read comments on /r/starlink of people switching from Viasat. It's pretty unequivocal.

(I'd say "read comments on /r/viasat of people switching from Starlink too", but, well, all you can find on that sub is people switching to Starlink.)

Post reply on HN