The Astronomy Thread

Siddar

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
6,351
5,888
Space x is funding starlink on their own.

So charges make sense because they're after every penny they can get now in order to pay for the rest of starlinks deployment.
 

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,926
9,576
Space x is funding starlink on their own.

So charges make sense because they're after every penny they can get now in order to pay for the rest of starlinks deployment.
Investors are starting to pour out money whenever SpaceX does a funding round, because it is starting to look like they have a potential second major product (beyond, you know, cheap launches).
 

Cybsled

Avatar of War Slayer
16,467
12,106
The most exciting thing for investors is Starlink would have virtually no competition in the satellite high speed internet space for the foreseeable future. You'd basically be able to tap previous markets that had no option for high speed (rural), enhanced travel options (planes and ships immediately come to mind), and depending on price, you could potentially tap the less rural markets (although long term this would probably drive a pricing war - great for the consumer, but less so for profit margins).
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
The most exciting thing for investors is Starlink would have virtually no competition in the satellite high speed internet space for the foreseeable future. You'd basically be able to tap previous markets that had no option for high speed (rural), enhanced travel options (planes and ships immediately come to mind), and depending on price, you could potentially tap the less rural markets (although long term this would probably drive a pricing war - great for the consumer, but less so for profit margins).

So, how does it work?

If you're on Starlink and I'm on AT&T. Like how does a packet get from me to you?
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,774
8,067
If you're on Starlink and I'm on AT&T. Like how does a packet get from me to you?

Like any other satellite internet. You > AT&T>> Internet at large >> SpaceX/Starlink ISP division > Starlink ground station > Starlink satellite network > my antenna > my PC. Reverse, repeat.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,926
9,576
Like any other satellite internet. You > AT&T>> Internet at large >> SpaceX/Starlink ISP division > Starlink ground station > Starlink satellite network > my antenna > my PC. Reverse, repeat.
Also, the Starlink satellite constellation acts as a kind of Internet itself.

Classic satellite internet is Ground Station->Satellite->You, which requires a high altitude satellite which can see both the ground station and you, which gives you high latency (round trip to GEO at 36000 km altitude means a minimum of 250ms ping) and a powerful antenna (to reach the distance).

In Starlink's case (or the other attempt at competitors, like OneWeb), the satellite are in low orbit, so you
1) Have a lower ping to the satellite and require a less powerful antenna for a higher bandwidth
2) Have each satellite communicate to each other nearby, which means it routes your datapackets to the satellite nearest to "your" ground station rather than trying to see the ground station directly
3) But also requires you to switch satellites regularly as they rotate in and out of your zone of reception

The latter is why Starlink is only now becoming functional after so many launches. They finally have enough satellites in orbit that some areas on Earth have at least one in view nearly 24/24, which is why they warn that you may experience loss of connectivity: there are still gaps where you no longer have a satellite in view for a few minutes. Each additional set of satellites increase coverage density.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Burns

Golden Baronet of the Realm
6,127
12,354
Also, the Starlink satellite constellation acts as a kind of Internet itself.

Classic satellite internet is Ground Station->Satellite->You, which requires a high altitude satellite which can see both the ground station and you, which gives you high latency (round trip to GEO at 36000 km altitude means a minimum of 250ms ping) and a powerful antenna (to reach the distance).

In Starlink's case (or the other attempt at competitors, like OneWeb), the satellite are in low orbit, so you
1) Have a lower ping to the satellite and require a less powerful antenna for a higher bandwidth
2) Have each satellite communicate to each other nearby, which means it routes your datapackets to the satellite nearest to "your" ground station rather than trying to see the ground station directly
3) But also requires you to switch satellites regularly as they rotate in and out of your zone of reception

The latter is why Starlink is only now becoming functional after so many launches. They finally have enough satellites in orbit that some areas on Earth have at least one in view nearly 24/24, which is why they warn that you may experience loss of connectivity: there are still gaps where you no longer have a satellite in view for a few minutes. Each additional set of satellites increase coverage density.

Nice, that saved me some time. I was wondering about the lag, so, I was in the midst of looking up all the old sats (Huges Net) and new sats (Starlink) to see about latency, as you posted that.

To add a little bit to what Starlink/SpaceX is planing:
There are currently 895 satellites in orbit with an objective of 12,000 satellites for this phase, if the business is successful it may expand to 42,000.​
They will have 3 different orbital shells/arrays, each with different altitudes.​
Shell 1: 1,440 satellites at 550 km (340 mi)​
Shell 2: 2,825 Ku-band and Ka-band spectrum satellites at 1,110 km (690 mi)​
Shell 3: 7,500 V-band satellites at 340 km (210 mi)​

Also, you can look on Stellarium and see Starlink sats wizzing past, every now and then.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Borzak

Bronze Baron of the Realm
24,645
32,006
Can already see them if you live in a real dark area. In a line.
 
  • 1Dislike
Reactions: 1 user

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,774
8,067
My dad in the FL panhandle has HughesNet. It's utter dogshit. If Starlink can even provide a stable connection it's worth double the price.
 
  • 1Solidarity
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cybsled

Avatar of War Slayer
16,467
12,106
Reasonable latency as well. 100ms or less is better than the 500-600+ stuff with those other carriers. In theory you could actually game on Starlink
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,774
8,067
better than the 500-600+ stuff with those other carriers

That's just the advertised latency, too. In practice my dad gets 1500-3500ms. It makes even skype calls difficult. He and I are business partners; it drives me fucking bananas.
 
  • 1Rustled
Reactions: 1 user

Burns

Golden Baronet of the Realm
6,127
12,354
That's just the advertised latency, too. In practice my dad gets 1500-3500ms. It makes even skype calls difficult. He and I are business partners; it drives me fucking bananas.

I imagine yall have looked around for options at some point, but microwave internet seems to be growing at a steady clip in the rural areas. Have you recently checked for "fixed wireless" ISPs in the area?

A quick search gave me Rise Broadband as the largest fixed ISP in the US, but they aren't in Florida yet. There are a bunch of other small ones though and it looks like even AT&T has a 25/1 Mbps fixed internet option in some areas (cant tell where w/o zip codes).
 

Blazin

Creative Title
<Nazi Janitors>
6,404
33,612
Starlink success is crucial to my bug out plan for wife and I to move to Rocky mountains. Reliable internet opens up many more properties that we might not otherwise look at. Excited to see real world results people are getting.


On another side, thought this was interesting but still disappointing that we are this far in and we still don't really have concrete forward moving plans for a station other than conceptual ideas. We can do so much better than what we have now.

 

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,926
9,576

Podcast I was listening to mentioned that 3% of the satellites have failed already.
It's mostly like all hardware. It will either fail fast, or fail late - rarely in the middle. Given that the idea is to make lotsa cheap satellites, if you have a failure rate of 1 or 2 per launch of 60, you're good.

Most of the first batch has already been de-orbited, but I assume that's what not they meant. The first launch were tests, and most of those are the highly reflective versions that annoy all astronomes.
 

jooka

marco esquandolas
<Bronze Donator>
14,413
6,131


Watched this the other night, fantastic imagery. The idea Mars at some point was Earth like is pretty cool, makes me wonder if our primordial soup maybe came from Mars and we are all really just Martians.
 

Cybsled

Avatar of War Slayer
16,467
12,106
That has been an idea bounced around before and it will probably never be solved until we find more evidence on Mars