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

501–510 of 530 posts

Re: Starlink Maritime

#501

Post by shaklee3 »

walrus01 wrote: post #500
shaklee3 wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. starlink is also multiple smaller beams within a single beam for frequency reuse. a single beam does not get more bandwidth (in Gbps) than a viasat terminal. > You still need a huge ass earth station to start doing 16apsk/32apsk reliably. 16apsk has been used for about a decade now on GEO satellites. I'm not sure why the gateway size matters when we're talking about…

If you don't understand why in a geostationary based link, the antenna size at either end matters a great deal for overall link budget, gain, Eb/No and what modulation you can use at a certain MCS and code rate before it gets too blurry in a QAM eyeball chart, there's no sense in talking about satellite communications with you. I note you didn't answer my question because you have no idea of what modulations, channel…

I literally just said that 16APSK has been used for a decade on Geo satellites. I don't know if you aren't aware what modulation means, but that is the modulation. it does not matter at all what size the gateway or the user antenna is. 16APSK (actually 32APSK is used as well) and the carrier size tells you all you need to know about the speeds, unless you've never done a link budget or worked in this industry.

I said if they wanted to they could sell a 10Gbps plan, because that's what the link budget allows. they don't, of course, because it's not profitable. SpaceX also could in theory, do that, but they also don't. your original claim is that SpaceX somehow has far greater bandwidth to an area than Geo is patently false.

> the path loss and modulations required would mean that a given section of contended (let's say, 10MHz of a transponder) service to many terminals would still have significantly lower speeds and greater oversubscription to be economically viable compared to what end users see right now on starlink.

if your definition of economically viable is getting VC money and government subsidies pumped in so that someone else other than the subscriber is paying for the service, then I agree with you. but that's not the metric most people use when they discuss being profitable

Re: Starlink Maritime

#502

Post by FeepingCreature »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #499
FeepingCreature wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my model over at https://www.getguesstimate.com/models/20609 The biggest factor driving disagreement seems to be satellite lifetime. You also didn't account for oversubscription. edit: Though- > Let's raise the unit cost to $1.5 million assuming a very good yield on satellites making it to orbit. How do you get that?! Starlink don't lose 30% of sats, lol.

It's a round number, and assumes about 10% loss. But also, they can't make or launch the sats for $1.25 million each yet, so it might not be a bad number. Also, by my math, 5:1 oversubscribed is about breakeven, and it appears to be what Starlink does (reports of 10-50 mbps by users).

Just to note, 5:1 oversubscription wouldn't give you 10-50mbps unless everyone was using the connection at full rate at once. That's why (quick google) DSL services often oversubscribe by up to a 100:1.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#503

Post by deelowe »

Johnythree wrote: post #298
deelowe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink uses beam forming. It shouldn't need a gimbal.

The beam steering only operates in one dimension. The dish has to physically rotate and tilt so that the beam steering line coincides with the satellites orbit.

Seems to work in more than one direction for me. The satellites pass over head in two different directions and the receiver never moves.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#504

Post by deelowe »

Nextgrid wrote: post #55
deelowe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink uses beam forming. It shouldn't need a gimbal.

The phased array can probably only do so much and a gimbal might still be needed to compensate for movement outside of what the phased array can handle?

It can at least go horizon to horizon now. The satellites aren’t geosynchronous. I generally only have one satellite overhead at a time. They take about 5-10 minutes to fly by.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#505

Post by deelowe »

madengr wrote: post #126
deelowe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink uses beam forming. It shouldn't need a gimbal.

Doesn't the normal Starlink have an Az-El motor for rough positioning? Beam steering only gets you so far, and the more off-boresight you get, the worse the performance.

I imagine this has a larger array. The more antennas, the greater the resolution. I’m sure they’ll use the motor for rough positioning but I doubt they’ll add a gimbal. That seems overkill.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#506

Post by usrn »

shaklee3 wrote: post #493
walrus01 wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latency promised is obviously for the satellite segment, any DIA end user with a clue knows that terrestrial fiber latency to and from various places will vary based on where you are and how your local ISP is linked to nearby ix points and peers. I can tell you what the latency is on fiber from the Redmond or North bend Earth stations to downtown seattle, and it's minuscule. Same as if a person was a customer on…

Ahhhh, so when Elon musk himself says pings will be https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1415480145830465539?t=O9...

tbh it doesn't matter what's < 20ms with satellite internet that's amazing.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#507

Post by shaklee3 »

usrn wrote: post #506
shaklee3 wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahhhh, so when Elon musk himself says pings will be https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1415480145830465539?t=O9...

tbh it doesn't matter what's < 20ms with satellite internet that's amazing.

It does matter. When you make claims that a small group of people say is not possible and are quickly shouted down, only later to be completely ignored, it matters. It's the same reason FSD coming "next year" for 5 years matters, or having 20k satellites in service by 2021 matters. You say these things, people believe you and prop you up like a god, but when you fall well short it's "not a big deal".

If you recall there was non-stop chatter about how HFT would be using Starlink because the latency was so low, or that it would replace fiber because the latency would be lower. It was all fake. The latency will be 30-40ms nominally for most users. That's great (it's just okay for LEO) for satellite, but let's not pretend it's anywhere near what the goal was.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#508

Post by grecy »

shaklee3 wrote: post #480
grecy wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their launch costs are orders of magnitude lower than anything their competitors are paying, so it stands to reason their service costs can be a lot lower too. It also sounds like they're mass producing the Starlink sats for a fraction the price of "regular space".

they are not an order of magnitude lower. when you make comments like that you're not trying to have a serious dialogue.

How much are spaceX paying for a launch?

How much does Immarsat of Iridium pay for a launch?

Re: Starlink Maritime

#509

Post by grecy »

kalleboo wrote: post #432
fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I recently used Starlink in outback South Australia. It was faster than most wired internet I've used in Melbourne or Sydney.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#510

Post by shaklee3 »

grecy wrote: post #508
shaklee3 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they are not an order of magnitude lower. when you make comments like that you're not trying to have a serious dialogue.

How much are spaceX paying for a launch? How much does Immarsat of Iridium pay for a launch?

SpaceX sells a launch to customers for $50-70M. they make an estimated 10-30% profit, depending on your source and whether the rocket is reused. that is nowhere near an order of magnitude.
Post reply on HN