Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starlink Ground Station Map

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Starlink Ground Station Map

#81

Post by dwarfsandstuff »

stirlo wrote: post #55
aeyes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

El Chalten is in Argentina and its a completely different story over there. Chile has fiber all the way to the very south and is in the process of further expanding this network to all relevant cities in the south until the end of next year. https://foa.subtel.gob.cl/mapa-de-proyecto-foa/

I am well aware El Chalten is in Argentina, hopefully there's not a requirement to have a national base station to serve a particular country. The Patagonian location should be able to cover both Argentina and Chile effectively. Interesting to see Chile's new Fibre network taking shape. I guess it was a factor in the placement decision for these base stations though I imagine they were also located in Chile for the h…

Well, there's no ground station in Portugal but starlink already announced availability of the service in Portugal.

Unrelated: how should one go about to become a certified starlink installer, anyone knows?

Re: Starlink Ground Station Map

#82

Post by flemhans »

ta_sockarmy wrote: post #67
supernova87a wrote: post #17

Does anyone have an image of what one of these ground stations looks like? Do they piggyback on some existing antenna shack? Or did they build their own from scratch? I also wonder whether they considered partnering with AWS Ground Station? https://aws.amazon.com/ground-station/ Or maybe the Starlink constellation's requirements are not amenable to that?

SpaceX's original plan was to build environmentally controlled pods/huts to hold equipment to aggregate ground transceivers. However they found it more economical to build un-airconditioned pods/huts and use someone's extended-temperature equipment instead. Source: my employer is that someone.

What about huge layers of Schnow?

Or do they only use this method in areas where it's not schnowing?

Re: Starlink Ground Station Map

#83

Post by manquer »

stirlo wrote: post #55
aeyes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

El Chalten is in Argentina and its a completely different story over there. Chile has fiber all the way to the very south and is in the process of further expanding this network to all relevant cities in the south until the end of next year. https://foa.subtel.gob.cl/mapa-de-proyecto-foa/

I am well aware El Chalten is in Argentina, hopefully there's not a requirement to have a national base station to serve a particular country. The Patagonian location should be able to cover both Argentina and Chile effectively. Interesting to see Chile's new Fibre network taking shape. I guess it was a factor in the placement decision for these base stations though I imagine they were also located in Chile for the h…

Depends actually,some countries want to monitor their inbound/outbound traffic so it might be restricted in that way in geographies requiring this, they can hardly add monitoring equipment in another country after all.

Re: Starlink Ground Station Map

#84

Post by manquer »

dwarfsandstuff wrote: post #81
stirlo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am well aware El Chalten is in Argentina, hopefully there's not a requirement to have a national base station to serve a particular country. The Patagonian location should be able to cover both Argentina and Chile effectively. Interesting to see Chile's new Fibre network taking shape. I guess it was a factor in the placement decision for these base stations though I imagine they were also located in Chile for the h…

Well, there's no ground station in Portugal but starlink already announced availability of the service in Portugal. Unrelated: how should one go about to become a certified starlink installer, anyone knows?

Europe might be considered the same geography regulations wise.

Strict regimes would want connections termination locally so they can monitor and implement content blocks/censorships etc. It would not be possible if the ground stations where not in the geographical control.

Re: Starlink Ground Station Map

#85

Post by jcrawfordor »

walrus01 wrote: post #59
jcrawfordor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of sites in the United States, actually all of them I've checked, are pre-existing fiber shelters, mostly CenturyLink's in the west. They exist at various points on the fiber line for add-drop and power injection. It's not especially unusual to negotiate with carriers to install equipment at these sites as part of your transit agreement. I don't immediately see any aerial photos where SpaceX's equipment…

One thing to clarify there's no power injecting going on, unless you mean optically through things like Raman amps and EDFAs... Long haul terrestrial fiber cables aren't like submarine fiber which has copper lines to carry high voltage power for submarine repeaters/amps. The power at each site is self contained, usually a fairly normal feed from local grid utility, backup generators (diesel or propane), and -48vdc re…

Yeah I'm just wrong about that, my knowledge is mostly historical and it's hard for me to get out of the mindset of the L-carriers where amplifier interval was 2-10 miles. The amplifier interval on the fiber these days is long enough they just build one of these points each time instead of having line-powered amplifier vaults.

That said out west where I am it's very common for fiber routes to follow the L-carrier routes and reuse the formerly line-powered amplifier sites for add-drop, but I believe they've had the utility install conventional power everywhere they've done that.

Re: Starlink Ground Station Map

#86

Post by bcrl »

It's a pity that those of us offering to host ground stations in areas where the nearest ground station is hundreds of kilometers away are ignored. I've tried to reach folks at Starlink with zero success thus far. That said, I wonder what the bottleneck is for setting up new ground stations.

Re: Starlink Ground Station Map

#87

Post by GekkePrutser »

lmm wrote: post #60
GekkePrutser wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True but for best latency and speeds a direct link back to ground would be best. I think the laser links would be more for remote areas and oceans where downlinks are impossible.

> True but for best latency and speeds a direct link back to ground would be best. Speed maybe, latency no. Light is faster in a vacuum than through a fiber optic cable, so a satellite-to-satellite path would generally be faster even though it has to go a few hundred km further.

True but in each satellite it has to be processed, integrity checked routed and queued to the next hop. That kind of stuff takes much longer than any differences in light speeds.

Re: Starlink Ground Station Map

#88

Post by GekkePrutser »

WJW wrote: post #70
GekkePrutser wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you'd have much benefit of MIMO on a connection that's line of sight like this. MIMO is all about making the most of separate connection paths through reflections from walls, buildings etc. But in this case there'll be only one path.

Not necessarily: you could connect to several satellites and multiply your bandwidth that way.

Good point, once they have enough that could work.

Re: Starlink Ground Station Map

#89

Post by lmm »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #87
lmm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> True but for best latency and speeds a direct link back to ground would be best. Speed maybe, latency no. Light is faster in a vacuum than through a fiber optic cable, so a satellite-to-satellite path would generally be faster even though it has to go a few hundred km further.

True but in each satellite it has to be processed, integrity checked routed and queued to the next hop. That kind of stuff takes much longer than any differences in light speeds.

No it doesn't, and it's not like you don't need to route messages travelling terrestrially. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the technology knows that what you're saying is straight-up false.
Post reply on HN