Starlink Thread (split from SpaceX)

[CatastrophicFailure]

So, this is interesting...

 

... and depressing, as I found Starlink isn’t even in my county yet, despite being right in the middle of everywhere else it is. 

[StrandedonEarth]

10 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

So, this is interesting...

 and depressing, as I found Starlink isn’t even in my county yet, despite being right in the middle of everywhere else it is. 

Maybe you need to be on a Colorado mountaintop....

https://www.teslarati.com/starlink-10k-ft-elevation-test-video/

 

[RCgothic]

CNBC has interviewed 50 Starlink beta users about their experiences and have found the early response to be overwhelmingly positive.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/spacexs-starlink-early-users-review-service-internet-speed-price.htm

[kerbiloid]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-satellite-internet-project-is-too-risky-rivals-say-11618827368

Bad, bad Starlink.

[RCgothic]

Well of course the rivals would say that, whilst planning to add to the problem they're complaining about.

[RCgothic]

The recent incident between Starlink and OneWeb wasn't a near miss, and the automated collision avoidance manoeuvre system on Starlink was non-operative at OneWeb's request.

Naughty OneWeb telling porkies.

 

 

 

[kerbiloid]

Starlink, OneWeb, and the 3rd one (can't recall its name) should equip their sats with a Collision Prevention System.

A collision preventer is tested long ago:

Spoiler

 

[RCgothic]

That wouldn't prevent a collision, it'd just be hit by shrapnel instead of a single larger piece.

And Starlink does have an automated avoidance system, and it's a very capable and responsive system. Part of the row between OneWeb and SpaceX is that Starlink is capable of conducting such manoeuvres on short notice, typically 12h before the estimated time of collision.

In this instance because the probability of collision was low 1 in10⁴-10⁵ and falling, SpaceX were planning to wait until around then to make a decision, because 10⁵ is their threshold for manoeuvres. OneWeb's sat needs longer to set up a manoeuvre, so they opted not to wait. OneWeb therefore asked SpaceX to turn off their automated system so that it didn't accidentally counteract the manouevre OneWeb were performing.

At the time of the collision, the sats missed by over a km with a probability of collision of less than 1 in 10⁸. It wasn't a close call.

So OneWeb complain to the regulator that they had to manoeuvre around an unmanoeuvrable Starlink and WTH are SpaceX playing at. That was an outright fabrication. SpaceX were being communicative, cooperative, and responsive, and the Starlink would have manouevred on its own if it had needed to.

[kerbiloid]

11 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

That wouldn't prevent a collision, it'd just be hit by shrapnel instead of a single larger piece.

A front aluminium shield.

Alternative: OneWeb sats should spit gum on fly-by.

12 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

And Starlink does have an automated avoidance system

When the sat is alive. When it's dead, the automated avoidance system also is.

13 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

In this instance because the probability of collision was low 1 in10⁴-10⁵ and falling

If they are distributed uniformly rather than on crossing trajectories and decade-long lifetime.

[cubinator]

4 hours ago, RCgothic said:

So OneWeb complain to the regulator that they had to manoeuvre around an unmanoeuvrable Starlink and WTH are SpaceX playing at. That was an outright fabrication. SpaceX were being communicative, cooperative, and responsive, and the Starlink would have manouevred on its own if it had needed to.

Now that's just a really nasty move.

[mikegarrison]

3 hours ago, cubinator said:

Now that's just a really nasty move.

It was a Marketing guy. It's what they do.

[RCgothic]

1 hour ago, Deller said:

The development of Starlink is of course very ambitious and inspiring. I read that China also wants to make a similar network with the difference that it will be in a higher near-earth orbit.

Higher requires fewer sats and therefore fewer launches, but it also has higher latency and the decay periods for failed sats gets much longer.

[tater]

2 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Higher requires fewer sats and therefore fewer launches, but it also has higher latency and the decay periods for failed sats gets much longer.

Any impact on astronomy will also be greater since the sats will be illuminated by the sun longer after sunset on the surface.

[Gargamel]

2 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

but it also has higher latency

Much Much higher.   I used to have Hughesnet, which uses geostationary sats, and my ping just to the base station (Idaho I think, but it jumped around a bit) was 2000ms.   Then there was the ping from there more time...  

[RCgothic]

1 minute ago, Gargamel said:

Much Much higher.   I used to have Hughesnet, which uses geostationary sats, and my ping just to the base station (Idaho I think, but it jumped around a bit) was 2000ms.   Then there was the ping from there more time...  

I'm uncertain whether China's network would be all the way out in geostationary orbit, but yes, fifty times further away is fifty times the latency and a much larger dish required. Although a geostationary or molniya-type profile wouldn't require tracking antennas or phased arrays.

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, Deller said:

But there is also the question of pricing for each of the countries with different levels of economy

Rich country: one family shares a Starlink terminal. 

Poor country: entire village shares one Starlink terminal. Still a huge step up for that village, which previously had no internet whatsoever. 

They need to add a bonus offer “Buy 1/5/10kW of Tesla Solar + PowerWall and receive a Starlink terminal absolutely free!!**

** subscription charges apply”

[RCgothic]

Protests dismissed, license modification granted.

 

 

[tater]

My lines at my house (DSL via Centurylink) are fine, but someplace nearby, my DSL goes south every time it rains.

Today it rained.

I am using my iPhone as modem, and I just paid for Starlink... hopefully it's around at some point in our area.

[Brotoro]

They make you pay before they are ready to  ship to you?

[tater]

15 minutes ago, Brotoro said:

They make you pay before they are ready to  ship to you?

$99 to get in line, refundable.

Was put on hold with stupid centurylink. Every time there is construction around here they screw up the lines. I think someone left one of their boxes open down the hill and it got wet. We don't have cable here, either.

 

[kerbiloid]

On 4/22/2021 at 9:16 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

Rich country: one family shares a Starlink terminal.

Poor country: entire village shares one Starlink terminal. Still a huge step up for that village, which previously had no internet whatsoever. 

Smart poor country:  one family shares a Starlink terminal., entire village connects to the hacked wi-fi.

[Brotoro]

4 hours ago, tater said:

$99 to get in line, refundable.

Was put on hold with stupid centurylink. Every time there is construction around here they screw up the lines. I think someone left one of their boxes open down the hill and it got wet. We don't have cable here, either.

 

I have also now sent them $99. We’ll see how it goes. I’m fine with helping pay for rocket development...and getting speedy Internet. But it wouldn’t become my only Internet connection until it gets full coverage.

[tater]

7 hours ago, Brotoro said:

I have also now sent them $99. We’ll see how it goes. I’m fine with helping pay for rocket development...and getting speedy Internet. But it wouldn’t become my only Internet connection until it gets full coverage.

Yeah. I watched some guy up north who reviewed it on YT, and it dropped speed during snow... still better than what I get on my DSL. I'll be a while before they have coverage this far south, though.

[tater]

 

Maybe the thread can be "megaconstellations, updates and concerns" at some point.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler