So that is "432 Mbit/s per laser, and 9000 lasers total". I don't know you guys but I find that statement much more relatable than "42 PB/day". Interestingly, they also say each laser "can sustain a 100Gbps connection per link" (although another part of the article even claims 200 Gbit/s). That means each laser is grossly underused on average, at 0.432% of its maximum capacity. Which makes sense since 100 Gbit/s is probably achievable in ideal situations (eg. 2 satellites very close to each other), so these laser links are used in bursts and the link stays established only for a few tens of seconds or minutes, until the satellites move away and no longer are within line of sight of each other.
And with 2.3M customers, that's an average 1.7 Mbit/s per customer, or 550 GB per customer per month, which is kinda high. The average American internet user probably consumes less than 100 GB/month. (HN readers are probably outliers; I consume about 1 TB/month).
>these laser links are used in bursts and the link stays established only for a few tens of seconds or minutes, until the satellites move away
The way Starlink satellites are in orbit, the same satellites will remain "ahead" and "behind" you in the orbital plane. Those laser links (specifically!) will remain relatively persistent. This arrangement is similar to Iridium FYI.
FTA: "in some cases, the links can also be maintained for weeks at a time"
FTA: "in some cases, the links can also be maintained for weeks at a time"
I think there is a lot of variance. The article also states about 266,141 “laser acquisitions” per day, which, if every laser link stayed up for the exact same amount of time, with 9000 lasers, means the average link remains established for a little less than an hour: 9000 (lasers) / 266141 (daily acquisitions) * 24 * 60 = 49 minutes
So some links may stay established for weeks, but some only for a few minutes?
I would guess that the links between satellites on the same orbit stay for weeks, but the ones that cross between orbits have to constantly re-established.
I believe Starlink (like Iridium) doesn't even try to establish connections "across the seam," ie the one place the satellites in the adjacent plane are coming head on at orbital speed.
This make side-linking easier because the relative velocity is comparatively low, but in general you unavoidably still need to switch side-link satellites (on one side) twice per orbit. Hence 49 minutes: this average must be calculated per connection not per second, so the front/back links (plus random noise) count less, so it only drags the average from 45 minutes up to 49 minutes.
I believe Starlink (like Iridium) doesn't even try to establish connections "across the seam," ie the one place the satellites in the adjacent plane are coming head on at orbital speed.
The slide showing the multiple possible paths traffic can take seems to disagree with this statement?
Impossible to tell from the slide, because such a seam only occurs at one longitude, and moves over the day.
However looking at other sources, it seems Starlink (having more satellites) actually wraps the orbital planes 360° around the Earth (vs Iridium's minimalist 180° configuration), overlapping both North-moving and South-moving satellites in the same sky simultaneously. This means the Iridium seam disappears entirely. Neat! TIL.
Another problem that vanishes simply by being "hardware rich."
Partially! There are also ascending and descending satellites meeting. Ascending and descending doesn't mean altitude but in a "2D view" sense. See https://www.heavens-above.com/StarLink.aspx
Thanks, this is an important point. I missed the fact that Starlink's orbital planes actually cover the full 360° of RAAN[0], not just 180° like Iridium did (presumably to minimize the number of satellites).
So actually this Iridium-type "seam" disappears, meaning that every satellite should always have co-orbiting "neighbors" on both sides. Cool!
Most customers aren't served by lasers, their data goes up to the satellite and down to the nearest gateway. Lasers serve customers out of range of a downlink gateway, and the traffic probably travels the minimum hops needed to get to one.
But with lasers, it makes sense to route your packets via space. For example traffic to a different continent would be faster (and cheaper) through space. Furthermore, I assume lasers have more capacity than gateways, so they could increase capacity of one satellite by bundling with more gateways.
Unfortunately, the routing to make this feasible doesn’t exist yet. Users need a single IP address from a range that’s homed at a single PoP. Starlink doesn’t support user-user connections through the mesh, you need to go all the way out to your PoP, then over to the other users PoP, then back through Starlink to that user.
Are you talking about peer-to-peer connections between two Starlink users, like if they were both in the same satellite's range but separated by a really tall mountain between, etc.?
I thought that Starlink always "landed" to a base station back in the same jurisdiction? I think relaying through space could open a regulatory can of worms.
All countries have strict regulations on radio waves, whether that's sending or receiving. The UK for example requires a license for base stations that stipulates things like geographical boundaries, etc.
You can't freely blast radio waves into a country without falling subject to its varying regulations, but the regulations for "pre Starlink" satellite broadband/phones/etc are fairly well established.
Well maybe it makes sense for US costumer to send their traffic down from Starlink in Canada and then via fiber to the USA? I do not really see the problem if the traffic is encrypted and forwarded.
Men spent 3 hours a day watching TV, and women 2.5 hours. But TV time is lower (around 2 hrs/day) from ages 20-44, then increases again after 45 and peaks at 75 years old at nearly 5 hours a day.
Households without kids watch more TV, which surprised me.
That's a nice find. I think BLS leisure time data is from the American Time Use Survey [1] which I think is asking something similar to this questionnaire [2] on page 22.
I'm not sure that's saying household time. For example, when they survey a household it wasn't clear to me if they survey everyone in the household or just one person. If it's one person then it sounds like they collect how that one person (age 15+) spent their own time and if there were kids in their household.
So then it'd be accurate to say that individuals in households without kids watch more TV as a singular activity (the survey doesn't allow simultaneous activities).
In comparison Nielsen used TV viewing diaries and automated data collection meters. You could have the TV on in the background while doing chores and it would still count.
It's interesting that the 2009 ATUS survey [3] had a 2.82 hour/person average because that's fairly different from the Nielsen data (4 hours 49 minutes/person).
I wonder if this difference is people underreporting in ATUS or Nielsen overreporting or a factor of differences in limitations in ATUS (no simultaneous activities allowed, 15+ age limitation) or Nielsen.
I grew up being accustomed to having the TV as background noise but stopped watching it when I moved out. Now, when I visit my parents, it's honestly quite difficult for me to focus on conversation - there's a machine in the corner making deliberately attention-grabbing sights and sounds. So I think your experience is normal & I empathise with the generation that complained about TV ruining family life.
Same and same and same, but I know exactly why I won't leave the telly on - I'm very susceptible. It grabs me. Even though I have no interest in ads or even 95% of programming. It's not a pleasant feeling.
I heard all those stories about Von Neumann working like that.
According to a biography, his wife once designated a room as his office and he became very angry about that since it was too quiet for him to work there.
Personally I need almost complete silence in order to get anything done, his abilities in this regard always fascinated me.
It's just a different kind of environmental requirement.
It's useful for some people to have recognisable sounds going on while they work, so they have something to latch their focus if they lose it for a second. Whether that be music, or every seinfeld episode on a shuffled loop on the TV.
I have found it useful in the past to listen through every song I have on shuffle while I read, which was nice when I took a few-seconds break every couple of pages and came across a song I wouldn't have picked out otherwise. Alt-tabbing out of a podcast or something completely wrecks my focus on both for some reason though.
I actually prefer to work in a cafe setting, where there is a good amount of non-directed background noise; no one talking to me, but just to each other.
If it's dead quiet, I become hyper-alert to noises, to the point I can't concentrate on working.
If Millennial still = young then yeah, YT or something in background on TV, doing something on laptop (dev, or photo editing or other) and then occasionally phone over laptop as well to reply to chats and stuff.
I would kill for some decent high res wide fov AR glasses.
Happy british baking children! I dont know what its called but it is on netflix and they are indeed happy, british and they bake. Or just put on Asianometry if you need to focus a bit more. I must have been through his back log a dozen times at this point. There is something about that mans voice that helps relax and focus like nothing else
For me it depends on what I'm doing. During working hours I have Soma FM playing at a low volume. Otherwise I'll probably have cooking videos or history documentaries playing as the background noise.
Yep, but that data originates from the providers network and never leave the providers network, so they probably don't count it towards your usage the same way.
I don't think that breaks net neutrality either, which the FCC seems to be reimplementing
All my data usage is over LTE and NR. On one line it mostly gets used for streaming video (YouTube,plex,twitch) and averages around 500GB/mo. I rent a line to a friend and he's doing over 10TB/mo on mostly machine learning stuff and astronomy data.
T-Mobile absolutely counts all data used over the network, my voice lines go QCI 9 (they are normally QCI 6) when over 50GB of any kind of data usage each month, the home internet lines are always QCI 9. I don't have congestion in my area so it does not affect my speeds. This is QoS prioritization that happens at physical sector level on the tower(s).
They absolutely count it the same way. Comcast just gives me a number for bytes used, with a limit of (IIRC) 1.2TB above which they start metering. Our family of four comes dances around hitting that basically every month. The biggest consumer actually isn't video, is my teenage gamer's propensity for huge game downloads (also giant mod packs that then break his setup and force reinstall of the original content).
I think a few hundred GB for a typical cord-cut household is about right.
This obviously has no relevance for starlink which does not have local datacenters for cdn purposes. All that bandwidth is going through the satellites right before it reaches the user.
Definitely sounds like a no-brainer / reasonable next step.
Most ISPs have CND appliances in their racks to save on uplink bandwidth. And from a satellite perspective the uplink (in this scenario: the downlink from the satellite to the gateway) definitely is the expensive bottleneck.
You want to avoid congestion and every bit of caching could be helpful.
Then it comes down to the mass and power budget (and the reliability of flash drives in space) - but that doesn't seem too terrible.
Yeah 1TB seems average for anyone in IT who is really into data.
I'm kinda pissed their is no local ISP competition in my area....and iv tried reaching out to companies with little success...or they say were expanding to your area soon but will not say when.
10GB symmetric fiber isn't hard. Hell I'd use more bandwidth if I could but I'm stuck with no fiber atm
I’d have guessed they count “delivered bytes” not “transmitted bytes” and then you need to take into account each leg of the transfer. Which for starlink is at least two (for the simple bend pipe situation) and up to potentially something like ?20? (for a “halfway around the globe, totally starlink” connection). The latter is probably statistically negligible, but even the factor two would give ~2% utility. Which, taking into account, that at least 2/3 of the orbit time is spend out of reach of anywhere useful, this would give something like 1 in 10 possible bytes being transmitted. Which is much better than I’d have guessed if asked blindly
Is resolution going to peak? Like speeding on a highway are there diminishing returns? On the other hand, bandwidth availability seems to also drive demand...
Resolution is always determined by angular resolution at viewing distance, even for analog TVs(they were smaller and further away), and also,
Videos on Internet is always heavily compressed - the "resolution" is just the output size passed to the decoder and inverse of minimal pattern size recorded within, technically not related to data size. Raw video is h * v * bpp and have always been like low to dozen Gbps.
Just my bets, the bandiwth may peak or see a plateau, but resolution could continue to grow as needed for e.g. digital signage video walls that wraps around buildings.
Sure, but "4k" is still being used as a differentiator for streaming companies in how much they charge. Even then they serve up some pretty compressed streams where there's room to do less of that for a noticeable notch in quality.
There's of course a limit. The "native" bitrate equivalent of your retina isn't infinite.
Next step though is going to be lightfield displays (each "pixel" is actually a tiny display with a lens that produces "real" 3D images) and I assume that will be a thing, we shall see if it does better than the last generation of 3D TVs/movies/etc. That's a big bump in bitrate.
There's also bitrate for things like game/general computing screen streaming where you need lots of overhead to make the latency work, you can't buffer several seconds of that.
The next gen sci-fi of more integrated sensory experiences is certainly going to be a thing eventually too. Who knows how much information that will need.
When more bandwidth becomes available, new things become possible, sometimes that are hard to imagine before somebody gets bored and tries to figure it out.
When I'm futzing around with ML models, I'm loading tens of gigabytes from disk into memory. Eventually something like that and things orders of magnitude larger will probably be streamed over the network like nothing. PCIe 4.0 x16 is, what 32 GBps? Why not that over a network link for every device in the house in 10 years?
There is one key issue of keeping lasers aligned for long durations between satellites and even between a satellite to a ground station. There are vibrations in satellites and even a tiny bit of that vibration translates to beam misalignment. Am not an expert though. That could explain the bursts.
So it's hard to sustain the theoretical 100GPS connection for hours let alone days across 2 end points which are in constant motion.
That means each laser is grossly underused on average, at 0.432% of its maximum capacity. Which makes sense since 100 Gbit/s is probably achievable in ideal situations (eg. 2 satellites very close to each other), so these laser links are used in bursts and the link stays established only for a few tens of seconds or minutes, until the satellites move away and no longer are within line of sight of each other.
I think I agree that each laser is grossly underused on average, but if you read the article, there's quotes about the uptime of these links. They're definitely not just "used in bursts [of] a few tens of seconds or minutes".
> That means each laser is grossly underused on average, at 0.432% of its maximum capacity.
Don't forget that every communication protocol has fixed and variable overhead.
The first is a function of the packet structure. It can be calculated by simply dividing the payload capacity of a packet by the total number of bits transmitted for that same packet.
Variable overhead is more complex. It has to do with transactions, negotiations, retries, etc.
For example, while the theoretical overhead of TCP/IP is in the order of 5%, actual overhead could be as high as 20% under certain circumstances. In other words, 20% of the bits transmitted are not data payload but rather the cost of doing business.
Starlink's big investor and launch customer was US Air Force.DoD had long complained about lack of fast sat comms, it's also why they effectively own Iridium.
So in addition to households add foreign bases and possibly drone command networks to possible sources of traffic going fast enough to warrant sat-to-sat connection.
My parents moved in and, being old, stream TV all day (instead of cable) and end up using about 40 GB per day with 1080p. We keep hitting our max of 1.2 TB set by our cable company (because there are others in the home!).
I should probably see if my router can bandwidth limit their mac addresses...
> And with 2.3M customers, that's an average 1.7 Mbit/s per customer, or 550 GB per customer per month, which is kinda high. The average American internet user probably consumes less than 100 GB/month.
The average household probably watches significantly more tv than HN users. That is almost all streamed - something like 6 hours per day times multiple TVs.
There’s probably redundancy in the links. In other words, A sends a MB to B which sends it to C, that’s 1 MB of information transmitted to customers but 2 MB of laser transmission.
I'm seeing about 6Mbps per customer during peak hour on my own network, so 1.7Mbps over a longer period of time sounds like it's in the right ballpark.
Thermal management is also a tremendous problem in space. All power generated must be radiated away, and satellites effectively sit inside a vacuum insulator.
I'd be interested in what the sustained power/thermal budget of the satellites is.
Where did you get that 100GB/mo number from? 4K streaming eats up data transfer quickly. Comcrap & friends knew what they were doing making arbitrary data caps that sounded like a big number at the time. Wireline data caps should be illegal.
My understanding of the state of the art of inter-satellite optical links is that they have only been used between satellites that are basically in the same orbital plane and in more or less the same orbit. That is, the angle from one satellite to the other changes very very slowly, so that the optics don't have to do much tracking -- and consequently satellites can only form an optical link with other satellites that are ahead or behind themselves in ~ the same orbit.
Cross-plane optical links would have a trickier tracking problem.
While there's no explicit mention of same-plane vs cross-plane optical links, I assume that the first time people have a public cross-plane optical link, they will make a big deal out of it. :)
The article also mentions that SpaceX would need to do further study before using laser links between satellites and ground stations-- this kind of optical link would require both more angular tracking and probably atmospheric correction as well.
> “Another really fun fact is that we held a link all the way down to 122 kilometers while we were de-orbiting a satellite,” he said. “And we were able to downstream the video.”
> For the future, SpaceX plans on expanding its laser system so that it can be ported and installed on third-party satellites. The company has also explored beaming the satellite lasers directly to terminals on the Earth’s surface to deliver data.
The lasers aren't used for ground-to-satellite comms. While they refer to some of them maintaining a link through the atmosphere, the lasers are intended for satellite-to-satellite communication way above the atmosphere.
There are some wavelengths that maintain decent signal quality through cloud cover, and even rainstorms. I cannot find the paper right now, but iirc Tightbeam (formerly from the Google sharks with lasers team, now spun out as Aalyria), demonstrated space to ground comms in adverse weather with negligible packet loss and something like 40% reduced bandwidth.
The customer terminals will likely never connect through lasers (because a laser can only point in one direction at a time), but moving the ground station uplink to a laser link sounds very beneficial.
It would fall back to radio and/or other connections. The laser connection would probably be sold at a discount rate due to the variable level of service.
Take a look at the slides from the presentation, I think the geometry clearly shows cross-plane links in the mesh. Having worked on these types of systems, I've had more difficulty with the lookahead angles (rx from where the target was, tx to where it will be due to speed of light) than the tracking -- fine tracking performance was required for all modes, and it largely became a GNC and acquisition time issue (since they're ephemeral) for the cross-plane links.
In general, how is the initial alignment performed?
Is there rough pointing, followed by some rastering, until the sensor gets a hit? Maybe with some slight beam widening first? My assumption is that you would want exactly one laser, one sensor module, and probably a fixed lens on each? Is the sensor something like a 2x2 array, or pie with three pieces, to allow alignment? Or is it one big sensor that uses perturb and observe type approach to find the middle?
Also, is there anything special about the wavelengths selected? Are the lasers fit to one of the Fraunhofer lines? 760nm seems like a good choice?
Alas there is no 'in general'. Acquisition is often the secret sauce due to, among other challenges, the extremely tight alignment requirement -- thermal shifts, satellite wobbling, etc, are all critical to manage.
On wavelengths, if you're trying to hit 100gbit+, you're probably having to use coherent optics, and there aren't many technology options or wavelengths on the market.
You got it exactly right! I worked on a simulation model of the complete optical setup of a laser terminal with movable mirrors and all including the fricking servo motors and a simple orbital model for the relative satellite positions. Plus an interface to drop in the actual acquisition and tracking code used on the embedded control system. All of that just to be able to do reasonably realistic simulations for verification and tuning of the secret sauce.
The "routing in the mesh" slide? Definitely given where the satellites are in that picture some of the links would have to be cross-plane, it's just the whole thing looked so messy (even with it being geo-referenced on a globe) that I didn't know whether to consider it a "real routing example" vs a "notional routing example that we overlaid on the globe".
Sounds very cool that cross-plane links are doable, even if they have predictable complications compared to in-plane.
I would have thought that someone would make a big deal (have a press release, e.g.) out of successfully establishing cross-plane links, but maybe it just doesn't seem that impressive to people who already have good enough precise predictive ephemerides or satellite states to make those links in the first place.
Tracking is an issue, but doppler can also be a thing. At orbital speed (actually up to 2x orbital speeds) the doppler effect between two satellites can change the frequency enough to cause interference. Moving a scope to track a moving target is one problem, allowing the algorithms to adapt at the frequency shifts on the fly another.
Indeed Iridium had to deal with the same thing (or I guess, didn’t):
“ Cross-seam inter-satellite link hand-offs would have to happen very rapidly and cope with large Doppler shifts; therefore, Iridium supports inter-satellite links only between satellites orbiting in the same direction.”
There were some experiments with communicating over Iridium to small cube-like sats back in the day, but we couldn't make the system on a chip beefy enough to do the Doppler shift calculations on the fly and survive a launch; it was close though. I think its possible to do now.
In the context of the full article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellatio...), it's clear they're talking about the polar orbits used by the Iridium constellation, which have "seams" around the Atlantic and the Pacific as the "first" set of satellites passing north-to-south overlap with the "last" set of satellites coming back south-to-north on the other side of their orbits. So of the 6 orbital planes used by the Iridium satellites, each plane covers 1/12th of the globe for each "half" of its over-the-poles orbit. So there are two "seams" where handoff is not supported, one off the eastern seaboard and one roughly over Japan.
Ah I didn't realize they have all of their stats in polar orbits, that's interesting. Starlink is mostly equatorial afaik, the higher latitudes aren't very well covered.
The Iridium satellites are in what you might call "parallel" orbits, if you stretch the meaning of the word a little bit.
The wikipedia link above explains it well:
"""
Orbital velocity of the satellites is approximately 27,000 km/h (17,000 mph). Satellites communicate with neighboring satellites via Ka band inter-satellite links. Each satellite can have four inter-satellite links: one each to neighbors fore and aft in the same orbital plane, and one each to satellites in neighboring planes to either side. The satellites orbit from pole to same pole with an orbital period of roughly 100 minutes.[8] This design means that there is excellent satellite visibility and service coverage especially at the North and South poles. The over-the-pole orbital design produces "seams" where satellites in counter-rotating planes next to one another are traveling in opposite directions. Cross-seam inter-satellite link hand-offs would have to happen very rapidly and cope with large Doppler shifts; therefore, Iridium supports inter-satellite links only between satellites orbiting in the same direction.
"""
The 'seams' have interesting implications for latency when I was working on Global Data Broadcast.
Doppler is not a big problem with lasers because the carrier frequency is so much higher than RF that it doesn't matter; it's bang-bang AM modulated.
I'm assuming two things: That something like Manchester coding is being used so that some clock skew is tolerable, and that the laser carrier is not in fact being frequency or phase modulated. Last I checked FM and PM of optical frequencies was not yet practical outside of laboratories, but I'm happy to be corrected.
Nah, I once did a job for a guy and they did LEO-GEO distances alright iirc and LEO-Earth in the mid-end 2000s, which has to deal with some pretty high angular velocities, if not as potentially high as LEO-LEO when they don't happen to be relatively nicely aligned. (In case that sounds strange, the guy was one of the two owners of a small, very specialized company that in turn was subcontracted by a rather bigger company. These laser terminals were quite the beasts and not really cheap.)
Right. The Iridium network had communication between satellites in different orbital planes passing each other but that was a pretty unusual capability.
They do have counter rotating planes though, so there are places where two satellite tracks next to each other moving in opposite directions, and these pairs of satellites cannot use the cross plane communication mode.
Additionally, their inter satellite links use regular Ka band radio.
It doesn’t get into it too much on pages 14 and 15, but it indeed suggests that they probably exclusively use the “intra-orbital” links closer to the poles to get data to a satellite where the inter-orbital links are more practical.
I believe Iridium had way more downlinks than they used to pre-bankruptcy. I guess volume constraints were less of an issue, so ok to hop around more in space.
Apparently it only happens above/below 68 degrees latitude, so the next satellite with a working inter-orbital-plane connection is at most one hop ahead or behind.
I'll assume there is a lot of double/triple (or higher) accounting going on here as data is sent through multiple relay hops to get the intended target.
I just noticed that they were launching their first satellites in 2019. It's impressive that they are now able to casually talk about the different routing options for the data streams to remote areas just 5 years after that.
At first this sounded like an utopian dream but now it looks like common infrastructure that has a place in everyones life.
This must have been the same feeling when the first landlines were installed. The very first lines were a sensation and then after only a few years it becomes normal quickly.
I think it's likely a bad idea at this point to bet against Elon - he seems to make more good decisions than bad decisions, and is able to attract and keep the talent that is enabling his companies to snowball exponentially towards reaching the abundance of the universe.
My deepest hope currently is that the riches of the universe now on the horizon of being relatively easily accessible, in a systematic and efficient way, will lead to the military industrial complex profit seeking to redirect their efforts to mining the riches of the our solar system and beyond, rather than likely mostly inadvertently driving for hell on Earth.
Past performance is a piss poor indicator of future performance.
You can’t deny (I don’t think) that the things he’s done are amazing. He’s in the zone where he’s smelt too many of his farts though, and believes he can do no wrong, which is historically a very bad place to be. I hope, for all of the awesome things he’s said he’d like to do, that they don’t come agutsa due to that
> Past performance is a piss poor indicator of future performance.
This is such a baseless and almost comically wrong heuristic I'm curious how it's one you landed on. I'm earnestly curious, do you use the same heuristic in other areas of your life?
If you were in the market for a car, would you let the past performance of other vehicles you've owned influence that decision? It seems to me to be such a simple and fundamental part of decision making, I'm fascinated you've gotten along thus far without it.
I treat my life as a series of independent variables… much like HN comments where sometimes sticking the snappy retort in regarding a brilliant but flawed individual might jolt someone out of their hero worship, but point taken
“past performance is a poor indicator of future performance” is quite a weak statement. It’s the one of the best predictors there is. There are very few exceptions. When you were called out you doubled down with complete nonsense. If everything were a series of independent variables, then every day after work, how do you decide whether to return home to your loving spouse (of many years) and children, why not go to a bar and find some strange? Why bother calling up your longtime friends to hang out, why not go to a bar and talk to the person next to you - a lifetime of (past) friendship is no indication of future kinship! Why bother writing a response to a forum post, when one moment from now, everything will be independent of everything else, and you have no expectations of feeling the same way? Finally, you excuse any flaws in your travesty of ideas by claiming that sniping at “Elon worshipers” is such a just cause that it excuses any sort of flawed thinking. This is a fine demonstration of echo chamber thinking.
> Past performance is a piss poor indicator of future performance.
Really?
It's my understanding Elon isn't popular anymore (I could care less), but this point does not help whatever it is you're trying to say. I deal a lot with statistics and making predictions from past performance, and you most definitely can determine future performance with a high amount of accuracy. This shouldn't really need said.
You are probably right about him smelling too many of his farts, but you really hurt your main thesis right off the bat with that first claim.
Prophecy generally falls in line with "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
If you have enough real-world data, and learned the patterns of history, along with fundamental principles that seem to be precursors or prerequisites to change, then a prophet is more or less someone with a honed and an extended-expanded open mind neural network compared to most.
P.S. It's why it's a really good idea to allow immigrants fleeing from communist countries, as they'll be best and perhaps first to detect and sound the alarm bells if fascism patterns begin to emerge in their new country.
The things he purchased were fine. They became revolutionary under him.
The man has a lot of flaws and since covid drifted into ideologies I don't agree with. I also wouldn't buy a Tesla. But there is no denying that both Tesla and SpaceX revolutionized their respective industries. And it seems safe to say that neither would have managed to do this without Musk. And at least SpaceX manages to sustain a substantial lead over the competition and continues revolutionizing industries.
This is obviously untrue. what you’re really saying is “I don’t agree with Elons views so it would be uncomfortable for me to think that he has some admirable qualities, so I don’t allow myself to think about it”
SpaceX, the topic of this thread, was wholly started by him, with him being very hands own since the beginning till at least the first F9. Just watch any fab tour with him, be the old ones from 2005 or the new ones at Texas.
He is also a founder at Tesla, as when he entered the round A financing Tesla was just three guys, some networking, and nothing more. Even the "Tesla" trademark and logo registration was made by SpaceX people. He didn't found his own car company with just J. B. Straubel (another Tesla founder who was being paid by him to develop electric car batteries at the time) because he thought it would be better to cooperate with that other group that was was inspired by the same idea and he though he would be able to concentrate more on SpaceX that way. He was wrong and had to take the CEO position on Tesla later to avoid bankrupcy, move the Model S design headquarters to SpaceX, etc. And it's now nothing like what it was when he first put money on it.
It's amazing the mental gymnastics otherwise intelligent people reach for just to allow themselves to feel superior over someone whose politics they disagree with.
It's a self defense mechanism after all - someone demonstrably successful and accomplished holding different views forces you to introspect the narratives you were sold... so it's easier to just argue against the former.
I would venture a guess that the bulk of Elon animosity started exactly at twitter acquisition time, when the people selling the narratives lost their merchanting channel and so they made sure to poison the well beforehand.
Not really unless you're using 1 GB flash drives from fifteen years ago. 256 GB is now common, which would make that petabyte less than 1 football field. (It's only 4096 such drives.)
>Not really unless you're using 1 GB flash drives from fifteen years ago
1GB flash drives are still 1GB today.
>256 GB is now common, which would make that petabyte less than 1 football field. (It's only 4096 such drives.)
If we're completely changing what we're using for scale, you can fit a petabyte on ~10 100TB drives, which is like 3% the length of an olympic swimming pool.
American Gridiron football, though Rugby League and Rugby Union (two other forms of football) use similar length fields/pitches. An Association Football pitch is almost always longer than a Gridiron field, depending on how you measure (it is typical to exclude the end-zones when measuring a Gridiron field, and while Rugby and Gridiron football have a playable area behind the goal (or try) line, Association Football does not.
As a side-note Canadian Gridiron football uses a longer field than American Gridiron football, though (measuring between the goal lines) still slightly shorter than a typical Association Football pitch.
Australian Rules Football is on a field typically longer even than an Association Football pitch, though I don't believe there is a regulation limiting the size.
According to a quick search the average US household is closing in on 600 GB of traffic per month, that makes 42 PB per day the internet traffic of 2.1 million households. Incidentally the second picture in the article says 2.3M+ customers. With an US average of 2.5 people per household that is the traffic of 5 million people or 1.5 % of the US population.
Knowing the size of a video file is exactly not the information, that would help me put this number in a meaningful perspective with any comparable operation.
How do I think of 42 petabytes in terms of an ISP? Is that a lot? How does it compare to other satellite providers? How does it compare to 4G capacities? Is this a small country worth of traffic or just any ol' data center? I have no intuition about traffic at this scale.
I still dont think this is what the OP was asking for. This is in the context of an individual-HD video is an individual perspective. More helpful would be a comparison to say a small town or a major city or state.
Netflix and Youtube streams are less GB/hour than a typical movie rip. Roughly 3GB/hour at 720p and 8GB/hour at 4K. A decent-quality pirated 4K movie is more like 20GB/hour. A high-quality rip is 40GB/hour.
> Which also makes me wonder how many of the shooting stars I've seen recently are just old starlinks burning up.
Probably close to none. The lifetime of the satellites is about 5 years give or take. According to this page [1], a total of 355 satellites have deorbited over the past roughly 5 years. That's an average of about 71 per year or about one every 5 days.
Since planned disposals are done over uninhabited areas (e.g. the pacific ocean), the likelihood of spotting one is very low.
Hope that helps answer your question, even it wasn't necessarily meant seriously :)
>The lifetime of the satellites is about 5 years give or take. According to this page [1], a total of 355 satellites have deorbited over the past roughly 5 years.
Wow ... is it economical to replace the entire constellation every 5 years? How does the business side work? Or is it just a great money-burning party?
This is a large part of why they're pushing so hard on Starship. Falcon 9 is great and wildly economical, but it's not enough to make Starlink profitable in the long term. They need Starship to make that happen.
They also want to make Starlink satellites bigger, which also requires Starship's much larger diameter.
If someone makes a mistake and the satellite deorbits in the wrong place, am I likely to be impaled by a satellite screw or something travelling at terminal velocity?
No, they burn up. You can think of how much work goes into the heat shields on spacecraft that are supposed to survive reentry. Satellites have none of that.
Starlinks are actually built so that nothing sizeable remains at all after reentry. This even delayed the laser coms a bit, as the original laser mirrors were too sturdy & so pieces of them could theoretically make it through.
I also think a screw at terminal velocity might not be particularly dangerous, similar to the popular "will a penny dropped off the empire skyscraper kill you?" question.
...which I suppose is closely related. The deorbiting satellite burns up because all that potential energy goes into heat because of the ~friction~ [edit: compression, thanks for the correction] that limits it to that low terminal velocity.
Actually the person you replied to somewhat incorrectly. They're not targeted re-entries because the on-board propulsion of Starlink is too low to precisely control the re-entry location. However instead the satellites are designed to be intentionally "demisable" meaning that every portion of the satellite should vaporize/turn to char/dust during re-entry.
Put another way, every kilogram of Starlink spacecraft has as much energy "stored" in it's motion as around 4-5 tons of TNT.
> Actually the person you replied to somewhat incorrectly. They're not targeted re-entries because the on-board propulsion of Starlink is too low to precisely control the re-entry location.
SpaceX says otherwise, see [1]
SpaceX spokesman James Gleeson, when asked about the 10 satellites, said SpaceX is “performing a controlled de-orbit of several first iteration Starlink satellites,” using onboard propulsion.
There's a difference between unscheduled deorbiting (as happened to about 40 satellites after a solar storm in February 2022) and a scheduled deorbiting manoeuvre trigged by ground control. Starlink satellites use electric on-board propulsion (Krypton powered Hall thrusters) that doesn't run out as quickly as chemical or cold gas gas thrusters. There's also not much precision needed to avoid major population centres - Earth is pretty big after all.
Not quite. The spokesman is a talking about controlled deorbit, where propulsion is used to actively lower altitude rather than coasting down due to atmospheric drag. This is in contrast to controlled reentry, which targets an ellipse on the ground where any debris would fall. The latter requires either much more thrust than their electric thrusters have, or a much steeper reentry angle than Starlink's circular orbits.
Starlink satellites are pretty well aerodynamically balanced when in their "ducked" orientation, but are not going to be able to overcome aerodynamic torques below 200 km or so, meaning they will be unable to point their thrusters in target directions. At that point, there are still 1-2 days before reentry will occur. Hour-to-hour variability in tropospheric atmospheric density due to solar flux levels and geomagnetic activity means that the precise reentry time will be unpredictable to within a few hours (which equates to anywhere along the ground track of a few orbits).
And I'm telling you that the statement is incorrect. Starlink is not equipped with propulsion capable of doing that. They use electric propulsion, which means they can't target a re-entry. They can de-orbit it on a time scale, but they cannot do what is conventionally described as a controlled de-orbit. Meaning they cannot precisely target a general area of the Earth. They can target re-entry within a couple hours to days, but that's still all over the world.
Now, none of this is an actual problem as they're entirely demisable, but the statement that they can achieve controlled de-orbit is false.
I think there's a major misunderstanding on what "precision" and controlled de-orbit means here. Precision doesn't mean a targeted landing. It simply means aiming for a certain latitude by adjusting the orbit accordingly, which is sufficient to make the difference between deorbiting over a desert or ocean and potentially densely populated coastlines or other population centres (central Europe comes to mind). Controlled means that it's the operator who decides how exactly and when that happens, i.e. they remain in control of the spacecraft and its orbital parameters throughout the process.
So if you control the orbit, you control the zone of re-entry. It's not a point or an oval in this case, but a "strip" a couple of kilometres wide. This is all that's required if the goal is to avoid major population centres.
This also means that the target is not "all over the world" as you put it - it's a very narrow, well defined stripe/trace (remember the scale we're talking about here!) and that's exactly what a controlled de-orbit is about.
Here's a blog post by ESA that talks about what controlled reentry means. https://blogs.esa.int/cleanspace/2018/11/16/basics-about-con... Controlled requires precise aiming towards a targeted location. Not just the operator deciding to do something. By ESA's definition Starlink de-orbits aren't even "semi-controlled".
This generally involves landing at a precise location of the Earth. It goes by a nickname, Point Nemo. A patch of ocean in the south pacific farthest away from any land. It's also far from standard shipping lanes. If you can't achieve this type of targeting it, definitionally, is not a controlled re-entry.
> It simply means aiming for a certain latitude by adjusting the orbit accordingly
You cannot aim a satellite for a "certain latitude" as orbits cannot follow lines of latitude. That's not how orbital dynamics work. I'm not quite sure what you meant to convey here.
> This also means that the target is not "all over the world" as you put it - it's a very narrow, well defined stripe/trace (remember the scale we're talking about here!) and that's exactly what a controlled de-orbit is about.
No it's all over the world, definitionally, because low earth orbits cross the entire planet as the Earth rotates. The possible locations the satellite can re-enter span a large portion of the globe from the negative to the positive latitude equivalent to the spacecraft's inclination.
I think you have a major misunderstanding yourself. If there's some term I'm using that you don't understand please let me know so I can help you.
There are so many that I spot them with my telescope while watching the sky with some frequency. In the last year I've probably caught 6 or so. It's just a spot of light passing through the view, nothing spectacular, but I think it would have been virtually impossible 20 years ago.
1. The satellite needs to be passing overhead at an angle where you can see it, and clear skies etc.
2. The sky needs to be dark enough to see it (so twilight or night)
3. The satellite needs to be illuminated by the sun.
4. The satellite needs to reflect enough light that you can see it.
Basically this happens just before sunrise, and just after sunset. So the ground and sky are dark (allowing you to see through the atmosphere), and the satellite - being at high altitude - is still illuminated.
As they pass overhead, you can often see them suddenly vanish as they pass into the Earth's shadow.
The International Space Station is a good one to find, as it's quite bright (very large).
There are various websites and apps; some phone apps use the GPS and magnetometer to show you what direction and time to look, and a search tool to look for visible objects at your location. It used to be really good with the old Iridium satellites, which gave a bright flash due to their large flat antennas.
> Basically this happens just before sunrise, and just after sunset.
I've seen plenty of satellites in the middle of the night, from very dark areas (wilderness). They look like stars, only they move more quickly. These observations go back a decade, at least.
I was mostly referring to the brightest things like the ISS, Starlink and (formerly) Iridium satellites, which are in low Earth orbit.
Higher orbits are visible for longer, due to the angles involved: because they're so high, such satellites can remain illuminated with the Sun further below the horizon. The Moon is the most extreme example: it's almost never in Earth's shadow.
> because they're so high, such satellites can remain illuminated with the Sun further below the horizon. The Moon is the most extreme example: it's almost never in Earth's shadow.
That's a very good question. I'm sure of what I've seen, many times over years:
I can tell you that they look like stars - so much that I need a reference point, an actual star or planet, to verify they are moving and not a 'stationary' star (judging movement being otherwise very difficult at that distance). They move very steadily, horizon to horizon, or as far as I can track them. A wild guess, based on memory, is one might take 5 or 10 minutes to cross between my horizons (usually I'm not on a plain - trees, hills, mountains may elevate my 'horizons' and reduce the distance).
Natural celestial object? No way a star is moving that fast relative to other stars and Earth's horizons. Asteroid? That seems hard to believe, due to size and illumination. Comet? Are there lots of tiny ones? I never see tails. Maybe a meteorite entering the atmosphere that doesn't yet have a tail?
Other human-made objects? Airplanes would look bigger and have colored, blinking lights - I've seen plenty of airplanes at night. Maybe there are higher flying airplanes without the colored and blinking lights? Are they illuminated whitish, and so far away they'd look like stars?
I've seen them so many times, I'm confident that I could take anyone to a wilderness area on a clear night and find one within 15-20 minutes, probably less.
> A wild guess, based on memory, is one might take 5 or 10 minutes to cross between my horizons (usually I'm not on a plain - trees, hills, mountains may elevate my 'horizons' and reduce the distance).
Yup 5-10 minutes is right. It depends on the orbit altitude and the height of the pass.
You can use sat tracker apps to identify which one you're seeing. I do this sometimes because I'm a ham radio operator and I track the one I want to use sometimes with a directional antenna.
> No way a star is moving that fast relative to other stars
No star moves relative to other stars when viewed from earth. They are all so far away they appear static. The starscape rotates as a whole (well it doesn't, the earth does, but to the observer it seems that way), but relative to each other they absolutely don't move.
If they do move, it is definitely a sign to stop drinking :) :)
> Asteroid? That seems hard to believe, due to size and illumination.
Also asteroids move way faster across the sky than a satellite. And they're rare except during that time of the year when they're really common.
> Comet? Are there lots of tiny ones? I never see tails.
Comets are incredibly rare in this galactic neighbourhood.
> and Earth's horizons. Asteroid? That seems hard to believe, due to size and illumination. Comet? Are there lots of tiny ones? I never see tails.
I grew up in a rural area, on a moonless night, without a fire, as well as giving your vision some time to adjust to the darkness, you can see crazy amounts of stars along the Milky Way plane.
I would guess, reflected moonlight (moon over the horizon) would be enough to light up the dot well enough to see unaided.
Between when the sun first disappears below the horizon and when (nearly) all its light disappears, i.e., the end of astronomical twilight when the Sun's center is 18 deg below the horizon, seems to be about 90 minutes.
It's been awhile, but I'm pretty sure I've seen these much later than that. I'm talking about lying in a sleeping bag, looking up at the amazing starfields of pitch-black wilderness nights (tip: never use a tent except in extremis - look what you're missing!).
To me, they look like little white dots moving across the sky. Brightness can change as they move too. It'll start off bright and then as it goes away it eventually disappears entirely. Since I usually sit in the same position in the hot tub, I've come to notice that I usually see one of them cross a pretty specific path from north to south, so I've gotten used to looking in that part of the sky as I'm sitting there. It happens so frequently, I get a little disappointed if I don't see one!
Planes are similar, but tend to have flashing or colored lights and obviously aren't as far away.
I'm in a big city, but close to the ocean so I have a bit less light pollution. The city is also heavy military, so that could be part of the frequency.
Update: if you're near any of the spacex launches, you can watch the rocket too. I'm house sitting in Irvine, CA and saw the Monday launch go right near the house. Amazing to watch the plume from the rocket!
Just throwing this out there, but has anyone else seen 'formations' of satellites? I've only seen them once but there were about 5 to 10 (it was a while ago) of what I'm assuming are satellites moving in a line formation at high speeds across the night sky. They're too distant and too fast to be planes so I'm assuming they are some sort of military formation of satellites?
That's often a recently launched StarLink formation -- the bunch up in a line when deployed, and have to be maneuvered over several weeks to spread out and take different orbits.
I don’t know how you would know that. People are very bad at seeing distances at these scales.
If they were indeed satelites they could be starlink satelites. They are put into orbit as a bunch together and then they spread along their orbital path as they take up their position.
If you could recall more details then maybe we can figure out more exactly what this might have been. (Such as where you were, which direction you were looking at, when did this happen, how fast did they cross the sky and how far the dots were from each other. Were the line spread in the direction they were moving or sideways?)
I saw ISS in formation with visiting spacecraft a couple times - once with Space Shuttle back in the day and at least once with Dragon. Looks pretty interesting. :)
My impression was that you can only see them as they reflect sunlight in your direction. As the angle formed between you, the satellite and the sun changes, you will first not see the satellite, then see, then not see it again.
And of course, if it is 3am, and there is no sunlight at any altitude because the sun is on the other side of the world, no satellites are visible.
In higschool we did an experiment with one of our science teachers based on this fact. We measured the duratuon of the iridum flares and could use some basic geometry to estimate how high their orbit is based on where the shadow of the earth is.
I don’t remember the details anymore, but it was one of the coolest practical experiments we did.
My tip is that the very central part of your field of view has worse night vision than the rest (trading off for higher resolution instead), so if you spot something moving in your peripheral vision, don’t try to look straight at it or it’ll disappear; instead, look slightly to the side, and it’ll be easier to see (although maybe blurrier).
You probably just thought it was a star or a plane. They move but relatively slowly (even a fast LEO sat will cover the sky in about 5 minutes). They look just like a star apart from moving slowly. Depending on angles they can look pretty dim, especially the latest SpaceX sats. But the ISS is usually really bright because it's so huge and technically it's also a satellite.
You can tell them apart from a plane because they don't flash.
Edit: But yes there are several conditions that need to be met to see them like the other posters have mentioned. But every clear night near dusk or dawn you will see sats for sure. There are just so damn many in LEO now.
It depends where you live certainly - if you live close to a big city you will probably never see them. But there are places - like New Zealand - where you can see them fairly often. There are some online trackers you can use.
The easiest satellite to see is the ISS. NASA provides times when it can be seen from any given place. I subscribe to the SpotTheStation mailing list.
In general, you can see a satellite when it is overhead and illuminated by the sun. In the evening, it will appear in the west, moving towards the east ( almost all satellites go this way, not just ISS ). As it goes farther east, heading towards darkness, it will fade away. The ISS is bright enough to see a reddish tinge as it passes through sunset light.
Yeah. With Starlink satellites, you need a lot of luck with the conditions to see them. I've seen them a handful of times and I'm in a relatively dark sky location.
ISS is often visible in the middle of the day even in bright midday Southwest sun, if you know where & when to look.
It takes several minutes for your eyesight to adjust enough to spot them with the naked eye. You can use websites to know when one is likely to pass overhead. Choose a suitable time (see: everyone else, basically right after dusk), and then lie down and stare up about 15-minutes ahead. Mushrooms are optional, they increase the chances of seeing something but decrease the chance that what you saw was real.
https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/ Put in your location and it will tell you when and where to look at the sky to see one. Works great for me and hopefully it will work for you.
If the seeing is good it's actually possible to spot up hundred satellites with the unaided eye. Due to light pollution, it's unlikely to spot one in most places, though. The ISS at least should be easily visible due to its size, even in places that aren't particularly dark.
> The lasers, which can sustain a 100Gbps connection per link
> Brashears also said Starlink’s laser system was able to connect two satellites over 5,400 kilometers (3,355 miles) apart. The link was so long “it cut down through the atmosphere, all the way down to 30 kilometers above the surface of the Earth,” he said, before the connection broke.
How do these tiny satellites achieve this kind of accuracy and link quality when they're shooting around Earth with 17.000 miles an hour?
(Meanwhile, me on Earth, has link quality issues due to a speck of dust on a fiber connector)
Relative to the origin satellite I would assume the others are in a fairly fixed position to it. Remember they try to keep them spaced out and even coverage. That means the things are not moving around wildly relative to each other. But to us they are wizzing by. For example I know I am relatively moving fairly quickly to the earths core and pretty fast around the center of the sun. But from my PoV everything around me looks stationary. Also there is not a lot of dirt up there.
This says more about the link budget than anything else, it's much harder to keep tracking when satellites are close to each other moving at high relative velocities. At the distances in your example, movement of the laser link optical head is very slow, on the order of 0.01 - 0.1 deg/s. Optical heads also have a control loop which actively corrects for pointing errors once a positive link is established. Check out: https://www.sda.mil/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SDA-OCT-Stand...
> (Meanwhile, me on Earth, has link quality issues due to a speck of dust on a fiber connector)
It's incredible really. I remember when I was a kid living with my mom on an island, we got broadband relatively late (compared to the rest of the country), as the island required antennas for getting mainland and the island linked, instead of cables. I think it was set up that way because of costs or something, remember it being expensive...
Regardless, the antennas were setup and we finally got broadband, but every time it got a bit windy and/or rainy, the links started to have huge issues, especially if the lake got lots of waves, then the connection simply disappeared.
And now it seems almost like magic to me how the same setup is literally done but way above our heads, in a really hostile environment like space.
The rate of change of their relative positions is what matters. At 5400km distance this is likely slowish so that tracking is not a big issue as long as position is well known, which it is.
Re. Link quality: laser, line of sight, most of the trip is in vacuum and the rest in very sparse atmosphere. So interferences are likely quite low.
Laser links are not using phased array antennas. It's a physically moving "turret" with a laser and another with a receiver. And they need to be separate units, because the speeds and distances involved are long enough that you are not receiving from the same direction as you are sending.
> that you are not receiving from the same direction as you are sending
It's a thrill to think about that. Starlink is really out there.
I bet this is lost on a lot of people. Not to patronize anyone, but what Tuna-Fish is pointing out is that due to the speed of light, the distance between satellites and their relatives velocities, when one satellite is beaming data to another satellite it must aim where the receiving satellite will be, as opposed to where it is now, when the light arrives. Further, the receiver must be looking at where the transmitter was back when the signal was sent, as opposed to where the transmitter is now. And because this is all bidirectional, each satellite must send and receive in different, continuously changing directions at the same time.
So we have a minimum beam width of 0.0014 degrees.
And the speed of light round trip distance is say 3.3 milliseconds.
So the question is, does the angle between the satellites change faster than 0.0014/0.0033 = 0.42 degrees/second?
Well the worst case is one satellite heading north at 7.4 Km/s and another heading south at 7.4 km/s. Lets assume the satellites are 550 km apart (the distance between planes at the equator), and use the small angle approximation... Comes out as 1.4 degrees per second.
So yes, these satellites do need the ability to aim transmit and receive in different directions! (although they might be able to just defocus the beam a little when angles are changing fast to trade off throughput for design complexity)
Real time video and telemetry for military drones that’s nearly immune to electronic warfare counter measures is the real end game. The fpv drone carnage in Ukraine is currently limited to the contact lines plus or minus a few kilometers. Satellite comms change that drastically. Yes it’s available now but highly restricted.
But not immune to missiles. Russia's already threatened to target Starlink satellites. Maybe they're bluffing, or not, but it does offer a reminder that these are just floating computers in the sky.
How feasible is it though once the network reaches a huge size? Starlink satellites are tiny, and they've been deploying thousands of them over the last few years. I imagine it would take enormous resources to shoot them down, especially if the US does treat them like a strategic resource and adds more for redundancy.
The huge size of the network is itself a risk. Kessler syndrome is something everyone is currently trying to avoid, but if you wanted to intentionally induce it you could just start launching giant payloads of tiny ball bearings into their orbits, or take down enough of them that the shrapnel becomes equivalent to that anyway. Starlink is low enough that the debris from even a full Kessler syndrome cascade will deorbit very rapidly, but we're still talking a 3-5 year timeframe, not months, and trying to rebuild capacity in that period will just worsen + extend the problem.
This is something commonly misunderstood. Kessler syndrome is a statistical process that happens over many years. It is not a sudden cascade like is seen in movies like Gravity. Statistical processes are not what militaries are interested in.
It's actually thought that Kessler syndrome is kind of already happening right now, which is why there's a lot of push right now to try to de-orbit the very large pieces of debris, so they can't act to form further debris.
It happens as fast as it happens. Any actual projection would depend on the specific orbits, masses, volumes, materials, and numbers of satellites - Starlink's orbits have a lot of satellites now. There's a very big difference between "everyone trying to avoid it" and "one of the world's largest space programs trying to cause it" in terms of how much we should be worried about it happening for any given orbit in the near term.
The reason it's a scary outcome is because it's an exponential. It can look like an isolated incident or incidents, then the next day be not practically stoppable.
There's already significant amounts of debris that transits through Starlink's orbit.
And I'm telling you, your "image" of what this looks like is just incorrect. The kessler syndrome is likely already occurring. Yes creating more debris will make it happen more, but it's not like lighting a match to a pile of tinder.
And it's not in fact exponential in the sense that people commonly imagine when they hear that. It's an exponential that's very close to flat, i.e. an exponential with an exponent barely above one. Given enough time, yes it can destroy all satellites in Starlink's orbit, but it's not on time scales that's relevant to a war.
Why can’t every satellite have a small rocket/firework like thing on the back pointing out to the expanse and if the power goes out or it doesn’t receive a signal from the dead man’s switch for long enough then it ignites? Even with a big mass you don’t need to give it much of a shove downwards in a zero friction environment to speed the de-orbit period up.
I’m sure I’m missing something but it just seems like a no brainer to make the deorbit process speed up with something relatively failsafe, as opposed to hopefully/maybe saving a bit of fuel to push it that way eventually
Satellite failures often involve uncontrolled spinning. So you've turned a piece of debris in a known stable path that will eventually deorbit into a piece of debris on an unknown but potentially energetic orbit.
Satellites do have deorbit thrusters, but they're a lot more deliberate. I think Starlink have a whole separate remote controllable system just for deorbit control.
1. Most significant satellites already have propulsion, only the smallest do not (which is a side problem). The problem is that when satellites fail, the guidance will often fail too.
2. Engines and fuel are heavy. Including one on the smallest satellites may take up the entire mass availability that would go to the instruments, leaving the satellite with nothing to do. There are people working on this, one idea is including a small air canister and a balloon. At end of mission the balloon can be inflated which greatly increases the drag of the satellite causing it to de-orbit relatively soon.
3. As a side note, you don't want to fire "out to the expanse" as that won't de-orbit your satellite. It'll just "twist" the orbit, lowering the perigee and raising the apogee. Primarily it'd just waste fuel. To de-orbit you want to slow down, so you need aim "backwards" along your orbit's path.
4. With a big mass you need an equally large amount of fuel as what determines your ability to de-orbit is the satellite mass, your engine's propulsion efficiency, and the amount of fuel you have.
5. The problem isn't existing satellites. The problem is very old defunct satellites and rocket bodies and existing small debris. Many rockets used to (and still do to some extent) leave large pieces of themselves in orbit.
Pretty feasible for anyone who has enough ballistic missiles to target about 5000 targets, or is willing to invest a couple billion into stocking 5000 overpowered fighter-launched missiles. Starlink isn't that high up, and in military terms 5000 targets isn't that much.
The effort of getting a ballistic trajectory that peaks at 500km is a lot smaller than reaching a stable orbit of that height. And just like WWII aircraft you don't need to hit them, just produce enough shrapnel in their vague vicinity.
The biggest hurdle is the universal international condemnation you would receive for such an act
Even if anti-satellite missiles are too expensive to be used to shoot down thousands of targets, the ground stations could be bombed instead. Hacking the control plane and sending de-orbit commands could be even cheaper.
Starlink satellites use inter-satellite lasers and can send those signals arbitrary distances via multiple satellites. Taking out a ground station will just require routing changes and the constellation will continue to perform.
And you can't just wave around "hacking the control plane". Russia's been trying to interfere with Starlink for a while and they haven't had any long term success. And finally, even if the did somehow get access to the control systems at SpaceX, the satellites can't de-orbit quickly. It takes weeks to de-orbit, over which time they could be commanded to reverse course.
The new generation of Starlink satellites have laser connections between them (which is what the article is discussing). They can send data to the other side of the globe to a friendly country for the ground link. (That’s a less efficient use of the inter-satellite bandwidth, of course, but worth doing for war.)
Yes effectively immune to missiles. SpaceX launches a new batch of 22 satellites on average every 4-5 days right now and if needed can launch a new batch every 3 days. You'd have to shoot down thousands of satellites to create enough of a service gap, and keep shooting down the new ones. And the problem is only getting harder with time. Unless you're building up an armada of thousands of anti-satellite missiles that you need to maintain at the ready to do this task, you're not really taking the system down.
I should add that anti-satellite missiles are _large_ missiles. The missiles of this size in the US arsenal are SM-3 missiles (or larger). The number even the US has is only in the high hundreds to possibly low thousands. That's completely out of the ability of Russia. It's maybe possible for China but not in their current stockpiles.
There's no way Russia can afford to make a significant dent in the number of Starlink satellites, even assuming their ASAT missiles aren't mostly filled with water rather than rocket fuel as a result of corruption.
It doesn't really matter who owns it as long as it can be bent towards national goals when it matters.
American vehicle manufacturing was a strategic advantage during WWII because they swiftly pivoted to selling tanks to the government instead of cars to civilians.
The distinction here is that ships are built by nongovernmental private enterprises, whilst Starlink is operated by a nongovernmental private enterprise. With a somewhat volatile executive.
Which isn't unprecedented. But it's also far from the equivalence your comment suggests.
Problem is that we're talking about how it works currently. US also used to send its own specifically owned spacecrafts into space. But it hasn't in ages.
Plenty of US strategic advantages are privately held or otherwise very dependent on the private sector. It's fine because the company can't really leave the US.
Offloading the risk on private players, reduces the amount of government investment required, and shields them from any criticism, should the project fail.
Also, if it is that strategically important, the government can just buy SpaceX.
They probably wouldn't have to buy them, if there's a war on they probably have enough legal tools to just require SpaceX to sell them whatever capabilities they have.
That any SpaceX user who has a connection established for >2h will have their data sent not via the classic path "ground - satellite - ground" at least once during the connection, but via "ground - satellite 1 - satellite 2 - ground".
I think it means pretty much all Starlink users have at least some data go over laser links every two hours. Which is a bit of surprise to me, if true. I have a year or so of fine-grained latency detail taken with IRTT on a Starlink connection, I should sit down and see if I can see times I'm using a satellite. Latency is highly variable in Starlink though so it's pretty noisy data.
Have you posted that data anywhere? I'm currently on a 10mbps DSL connection and considering StarLink, but have so far been scared away by the cost and concerns about latency, so I'm always on the lookout for real world data.
My pings roughly 60-80 no matter if I’m going to a friends server down the road or across the world. Before starlink, my rural internet would be lucky to get below 120. For what that’s worth.
What are you talking about - weather you think it will work or not, no other company is collecting training data and attempting to solve FSD in the same order of magnitude as Tesla. (last is saw, TSLA collects more video data in 1.5 years then Waymo does in 1 year)
FSD12 is end-to-end neural nets and the videos are pretty impressive. Who else is doing that ?
Optical fiber has an index of refraction of around 1.6, so signals travel at around 0.6c. For a perfectly straight cross-continental link (5,000km) with no delays from amplification/retransmission, that's about 26 milliseconds. Assuming the satellites are directly overhead, Starlink adds another 500km up and down, making the minimum possible latency around 20 milliseconds. The real number might be slightly higher or lower depending on the location of the satellites.
My guess is the real latency depends mostly on the latency of relay nodes (either satellites or routers on earth), not the medium through which signals travel.
Number of hops definitely matters more usually. For example I'm about 150 miles from Azure East US 2 (richmond, va), and at the speed of light that should be sub 2ms round trip, but actual latency to it is ~30ms. But I'm sure I'm going through dozens of switches/routers to get there. What Starlink buys you is that you get to go straight to a satellite, then a laser in a vacuum to other satellite(s) and then a ground station that's likely already at an IXP or very close to one.
Some big ISPs here refused to locally peer with some cheaper providers, so some packets to a local data centre (5 miles away) in Toronto would round trip through Chicago and back.
If they wanted a direct connection; they wanted them to pay for transit.
That could already be the case. Round trip time to the ~500km orbit is about 4 milliseconds (+ all other network elements before, after and in between). They claim to have a >5000km link running for significant time. Now think of a fibre link of that length and how many repeaters / routers will be needed due to attenuation and physical constraints. I can clearly see a path where Starlink laser links could be a viable option to subsea cables - at least for some priority traffic...
Starlink adds a latency penalty of tens of milliseconds going through the atmosphere. Each round trip is four hops through the clouds. I expect most of this delay is forward error correction, combined with lower bandwidth of the radios.
On top of that, you may have queuing in each satellite.
Finally, the satellite laser links aren’t pointing exactly in the direction you want to your packets to travel. They’re at some diagonal, and the packets need to tack back and forth, which wastes distance. Think the streets of Manhattan.
This is just incorrect. The speed of light through atmosphere is almost identical to speed of light in a vacuum. There's no latency penalty for traveling through the atmosphere. The one-way time delay to a Starlink satellite is about 2 milliseconds.
It's possible for starlink to beat radio, because radio can't always go straight to the target. If I wanted a radio link from NY->Tokyo, what would that path look like?
It would look like the HF radio bouncing off the ionosphere. I have contacted someone in Japan from Oregon. The downside of HF is that the bandwidth is low with 30MHz across the entire band.
There was company recently wanting to do high-frequency trading on HF because of the quickest path.
I'm curious how much the curved route affects the effective speed of communication with skywaves. You also have many situations where communication becomes impossible due to space weather or other atmospheric phenomena.
I will note that this is the case for conventional fiber-optic cable. The newer hollow-core fiber cables transmit light at nearly c. As far as I know hollow-core has not seen wide-spread use, but it will be interesting if trans-continental connections switch over.
Any stretch of fibre you replace with hollow core fibre will see latency reduced to two thirds of what it was before. (It would be half if the speed of light in it were double what it is in normal fibre, but it's only 50% faster).
You say sans routing latencies, but these are very much significant for intercontinental communication:
I get 6ms ping to AWS eu-central, which is less than 100km by air from me. I get 114ms to AWS us-east-1, which is roughly 6500km. Now 6500km / (2/3 * c) = ~32ms. So if there were a fibre running in a straight line, time in the fibre would be 32ms. Of course it isn't running in a straight line, so let's say 50ms are pure "light traveling through fibre". Switching all of that to hollow-core would cut that to 33ms, so that's a savings of 17ms or roughly 15% of my total latency.
This is still a very nice savings, but very far off from cutting latency in half.
(Also, it's a single hop from my company network to DE-CIX, one of the largest internet exchanges in the world, so I feel confident saying my results aren't skewed by a bad uplink.)
That's a great point, I was curious so I looked it up. Google offered the following:
"The speed of light in air is about 299,705 kilometers per second, or 2.99705 × 10^8 meters per second. This is almost as fast as light travels in a vacuum, slowing down by only three ten-thousandths of the speed of light."
So seems like the speed of light in atmosphere is still a lot faster than fiber.
Random thought I just had: What are the odds of a rocket launch crossing through one of these laser links on its way to a higher orbit and disrupting traffic for a fraction of a second?
I know space is really big and so the odds of a rocket hitting a satellite on its way up are incredibly low, but now we're talking about lots of lines between each satellite rather than just the satellites themselves. Are the odds still tiny?
Not that it would be a big deal if it happened, just curiosity.
It's absolutely incredibly small, think of how large the surface area of a sphere of LEO and the surface area of these lasers linking the vertices of the 5,289 satellites. The gaps between them are probably hundreds of kilometres. I would imagine that each link has multiple routes so if there was a failure traffic can still be routed in the same way the Internet has many routes.
https://satellitemap.space is pretty amazing but a Starlink satellite looks massive on there, really at the scales we are talking they wouldn't even be a pixel. Do we know how many of the satellites are actually interlinked by lasers?
There’s no friction in space. So the question is not how wide the plume of a rocket engine gets, but how spread out does the vapor trail need to be before it stops being an optical impediment?
You’re being condescending. That belongs on Reddit, not here.
If you’re in low earth orbit you’re traveling through rocket exhaust. That doesn’t mean you’re seeing enough to affect optical transmission gain. Or orbital decay. But the notion that you’re going to miss because there’s 100’s of kilometers between fast moving satellites? That’s the part of this conversation that deserves condescension, if anything.
Until one of us does the actually maths and builds a model of the probability of intersection I guess our intuition on this being different is fairly irrelevant, either of us could be wrong. I didn’t really think much about my comment, maybe it was patronising I don’t know. I try not to treat the comments I write here (or receive here either) with much seriousness, often you can take most things I say here as me thinking out loud rather than some planned sarcasm or as you say Reddit type posting.
I think the GP is saying that we already deal with these problems with downlinks, so accounting for similar problems on crosslinks is a known, and expected quantity.
Interesting question. It used to be zero, before the satellites and before the rockets, but now is probably not zero.
I think you could take the time a rocket would be in the way and compare it to the time it would take any given satellite link pair to make an orbit to form an estimate of the chance of a single interference. Then multiply by rockets and satellite pairs to form an overall estimate.
I've done some research, I don't have a probability but from what I've found. A Falcon 9 shortly before stage 1 separation is around 50km altitude[0] doing ~2000 m/s. Preseperation the F9 is 70m tall, add 130m for plume[1] so 200m total. At 2000 m/s it'll cover it's own length and plume in 100ms. If the laser link is running at 100 Gbps that's 10Gb of data lost.
Which is actually a lot more then I estimated when I started this math, kinda puts into perspective more then 1 of the scales at play here.
Tl;dr Rockets are fast, data is apparently faster.
[0] Apparently on its longest distance link Starlink intersected 30km altitude
It doesn't matter what the odds are; loss of connectivity is going to happen. Packet loss is common across the internet, fortunately we have protocols that can deal with this.
Starlink is rolling out "direct to cell" connections, where the satellites connect directly to GSM cell phones. Is any ground station involved in a cell to cell call?
You could imagine a situation where they can do that.
But practically what happens is the phone connects to a sat, the sat connects to a local ground station, then across conventional fiber to another ground station, up to a sat and then down to the other phones.
The are likely doing that because regulation and so on. But the do what you suggest.
For Google, I found setting my browser to "Accept-Language: en,sv" when I live in Denmark was sufficient — just English and they seem to assume I can't configure the browser and want the local language.
PCMag serves me English, with "en-GB,en", though I don't know if they would support Danish anyway.
The article mentions that they were able to stream video from a starlink satellite as it was de-orbiting - it would be neat to see the video of that, even if it cuts off as the laser link losing connection (or the satellite burns up)
Just for context, here's SDA's Open Standard on how they expect to do connections over Optical Links. I assume the starlink terminals work in a similar manner:
Has anyone tried Starlink? I super curious as to whether it's a decent drop in replacement for the ISP have been using at home, and have had trouble with since day one. I won't mention any names (but I will say that it sounds a bit like Smodabone). What is the latency like? The variability of the up/down? Does it do what it says on the tin? Is (non-professional) online gaming a go?
Been using it since it was first available. Latency is fine, speeds are good and steady. Occasional outages of several hours every few months or so, but improving as time goes on.
Only complaint is that their DHCP server is buggy so if you don't use their blessed router, you can expect outages when you get transitioned to a new base station and starlink expects your IP to have changed, but it doesn't, or sometimes when your IP lease expires. Took me months to figure out that was the issue. I run almalinux on my router so I just have a script that checks a heartbeat and if it gets interrupted it will nmcli down the wan interface and back up, which usually gets a new IP. Though sometimes it will give the special IP to my router that is supposed to go to the blessed router.
Overall I do recommend, but have a backup ISP if always up is important.
>Has anyone tried Starlink? I super curious as to whether it's a decent drop in replacement for the ISP have been using at home
I use it when I'm venturing around my rural area, which has spotty (or zero) LTE and broadband. It's awesome for that, literal game-changer.
But it does suffer from downtime, sometimes poor reception, bit of lag, etc. It's the difference between 99% uptime and 99.999999%; you'll notice if you're using it all day, every day. It's also more expensive than my home broadband for lower speeds. I don't think you could replace your ISP, unless your ISP is pretty bad.
My experience, a year of use - 300Mbps down pretty consistently, 40Mbps up, 40-60ms latency, fine for gaming for the most part, and the drop outs are unnoticeable short when they do infrequently happen. Never had an outage more than 10 seconds.
They’ve also nearly halved the price since I signed up.
My novice view....Laser connections are point to point, so they can be between satellites....But to the end user equipment,having those many point to point laser connections might be too difficult or impractical to achieve...So that's where they use radiowaves, which means any satellite over the horizon can talk to a dish...
1. Full-circumference world round-trip latency sat to sat (yes it has to go to ground to “count” but I just want to know what the number is)
2. Deployed LEO servers running with laser communication to the Starlink satellites. Preferably gaming or CDN since either is a great way to verifiably test the limits.
4 nines uptime is great, but I would think the SNR matters more in a packet switched network like this. There are conditions that may lead to a very low SNR.
No. The focus of a laser beam is not constant over these large distances. It is the same effect you get if you use a laser pointer over large distances. The spot becomes large quickly.
I use starlink, it works pretty well, as good as cable. Not garbage.
I've ridden in Teslas. Some likes, but holy shit that drivetrain. Not garbage.
You however, have been consuming garbage media. Hint: if every other day (ahem Gawker sites) there is an outrageous anti-Musk headline or "crazy thing Musk said" headline, your media source is total garbage.
Is he a "good guy"? No. Is he "the worse thing ever?" No. What does it matter what he says or does? Nothing. Yet he is living in seemingly millions of people's brains as the sum factor of dozens of PR and advertising campaigns, in addition to the general anti-intellectualism of America.
Anyway, Starlink is a transformative data provider service that blankets virtually the entire world in broadband class connectivity, including massive amounts of third world countries and other areas.
Agree to disagree I guess. The fact that it's his project makes it uninteresting even if the tech would have been alright in the hands of someone less harmful.
If you aren't catching things like his signal boosting of literal nazis on Twitter, your media sources are garbage. (Also is Gawker even still a thing?)
- Tesla kicked off one of the two pillars of dealing with climate change: EVs to eliminate as much carbon emissions from transportation as possible
on the other hand
- mean tweets
... yes there is a lot of hard work by other people involved in #1, but Musk's leadership was a major contributor. Let me ask you a question. Rank the most evil CEOs in the world. If you have musk over petroleum companies, mining executives, military contractors, gun manufacturers, internet companies hoovering your data for the government, financial wizards defrauding people for short term gain, etc, then I'm sorry, you don't know anything about the world. Oops, I forgot purdue pharma and other opioid producers, chemicals and industrialists that dump and poison the environment, surveillance and security companies enabling despots (and the US government), I mean, I could go on.
I suppose I could engineer a worm that bricks as many connected ICE cars, and also a worm that brings the world supply chain and petroleum production pipeline to a halt, and bring civilization to an end.
So technically, you are correct.
When Tesla started, there was zero. ZERO. movement by the automotive and governmental powers towards decarbonization of transportation beyond hollow treaties, one of which had already been utterly ignored.
Let me emphasize: ZERO, or as close as practically imaginable to it. Ten years later, every company's CEO had a question in front of them 1) how are you going to transition to electric vehicles and stay viable. If they couldn't answer that (BMW in particular, who actually were minutely ahead of the curve but squandered it), they were fired.
I don't really see an individual asshole's ownership of such a large part of the world's internet access as "humans advancing". Nor do I see his attempt at shifting the conversation away from actual solutions (e.g public transport, walkable cities, etc) over to "buy slightly more efficient and very expensive cars from him" as "humans advancing". His efforts to signal-boost the far right is certainly not "humans advancing".
This is just PR for one of his shitty projects. It has no place on HN.
I mean there's not that much I can do when you just write unrelated stuff? "None of those people were connected to the Internet before" .. so therefore it's somehow good that those people's Internet access is controlled by one ass? "Businesses still need trucks" .. so therefore it's good to sell in slightly more efficient cars as the solution to the personal transport part of the climate crisis? Or to derail high speed rail projects with vapourware promises?
The things I wrote and the things you responded with aren't connected, so there's not much intelligent commentary to give.
Now you responded to each item, good. That's how a conversation works.
But going into each individual political talking point for the various subjects you brought up would be tiring.
I'm not going to dive into your misguided views when we can't even talk about the initial topic that giving internet to disconnected people is a good thing and not garbage.
It is not HIS garbage. He is involved in numerous companies. Starlink is a product of SpaceX and that is full of thousands of great engineers. To be disinterested in SpaceX technology because of Musk is to be completely dismissive of the amazing accomplishments and effort of those thousands of great engineers. Would you like to have your work dismissed because the head of your company was a bizarre jerk? By any rational measure, SpaceX is NOT producing garbage tech.
Is this a serious question? You think SpaceX developed the industry-leading orbital rocket, launched hundreds of times to deliver thousands of in-house developed satellites utilizing homegrown, novel argon gas ion thrusters, to develop a global satellite internet system using inter-satellite laser links, their own in-house developed, incredibly inexpensive phased array antenna system, and everything else, and they forgot to use TLS?
OP was likely referring to this[1] which did in fact have lines like "tesla isn't encrypting their firmware and it's really easy to glean information from the vpn with a packet cap because nothing inside the vpn (was) encrypted".
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the sole provider, globally, of a reliable, reusable, orbital launch platform--also a proven heavy and in-development unprecedented super-heavy--is industry leading. SpaceX is at least a generation ahead of not only every other commercial competitor, but also every national space programme the world over.
Who else would be industry leading if not for SpaceX? Genuinely asking, I don't get how a source would be even possible for this. Do you mean in terms of launch? Satellites in orbit? Because they are leading both of those by far
so you are asking if the traffic is additionally encrypted? i don't think that additional encryption is needed, like your ISP doesn't additionally encrypt your TLS encrypted traffic, that would be waste of resources
Usual selling point in marketing of ground based free space optical links is that it is very hard to intercept. Compared to P2P microwave the beam is significantly narrower and alignment requirements higher and the link loss budget is usually tight enough that when the beam becomes visible off-axis due the weather efects (heavy rain or ridiculously thick fog) the link fails.
On the other hand one can extrapolate from results of reverse engineering of the starlink dish. Everything that goes through the space segment is encrypted and entirerity of the high-level control plane is mTLS authenticated, so one would assume that the inter-satellite links work in similar way. Of note is that software in the dish seems to share large swatches of code with what is not only on the starlink satellites but bunch of other SpaceX embedded linux systems.
the DoD and the NSA surely looked closely in the past couple of years. not least because their Russian and Chinese counterparts for sure are trying to look closely, too, especially in the past couple years.
Global internet traffic is estimated to be 3 yottabytes per day. So Starlink is now carrying one of out every 77 million parts of worldwide traffic. Wow, that's small.
EDIT: there's some confusion information out there. With a more conservative estimate of 150.7 exabytes per month, Starlink gets 1 part of 119, which is more impressive.
And with 2.3M customers, that's an average 1.7 Mbit/s per customer, or 550 GB per customer per month, which is kinda high. The average American internet user probably consumes less than 100 GB/month. (HN readers are probably outliers; I consume about 1 TB/month).