SpaceX Seeks Approval For Up To 1M Earth Stations for Its Satellite Service (geekwire.com) 74
SpaceX just filed a new earth-station license application with America's Federal Communications Commisions, seeking blanket approval "for up to a million earth stations" for customers of their Starlink satellite internet service, reports GeekWire:
Those satellites have already received clearance from the FCC, and SpaceX plans to launch the first elements of the initial 4,425-satellite constellation this year, using Falcon 9 rockets.... Eventually, SpaceX wants to build up the network to take in as many as 12,000 satellites in low Earth orbit...
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has said the Starlink project aims is to provide high-speed, reliable and affordable broadband data services to consumers in the U.S. and around the world, including an estimated 3.8 billion people who are underserved by existing networks. When he unveiled the project four years ago in Seattle, he said revenue from the internet service would pay for his vision of creating a city on Mars.
The application assures regulators that the earth stations will "incorporate advanced technologies to enable highly efficient use of the spectrum and enhance the customer's broadband experience."
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has said the Starlink project aims is to provide high-speed, reliable and affordable broadband data services to consumers in the U.S. and around the world, including an estimated 3.8 billion people who are underserved by existing networks. When he unveiled the project four years ago in Seattle, he said revenue from the internet service would pay for his vision of creating a city on Mars.
The application assures regulators that the earth stations will "incorporate advanced technologies to enable highly efficient use of the spectrum and enhance the customer's broadband experience."
Revolutionary (Score:5, Insightful)
If SpaceX pulls this off, it will revolutionize connectivity around the world. Many, many ISP monopolies (companies that have a stranglehold on small isolated populated areas due to buying up their telco or cable) will FINALLY have to compete. There are vast stretches of the United States with utter crap internet offerings. This is going to shake up everything from internet, to the cell phone carriers, to the "internet of things".
There are many multi-billion dollar companies that stand to lose tremendous amounts of money from this, while the general population of the world stands to gain a great deal of freedom and choice. Again, if SpaceX pulls this off, it will be one of the milestones in modern human history, and it will make SpaceX unbelievably wealthy.
Re: Revolutionary (Score:1)
Yea but then you have one big monopoly in the sky... remember when googles motto was do no evil?
Re: Revolutionary (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea but then you have one big monopoly in the sky... remember when googles motto was do no evil?
A business is only a monopoly if people are forced to use it. Like, for instance, today's rural Internet access. If you're lucky, there is broadband cable available to your neighborhood. But because there is never more than one provider outside large cities, a satellite alternative would be good competition.
Re: (Score:3)
You're assuming they'd continue to co-exist, that's not what happens in a natural monopoly. When you have a large fixed cost to build the infrastructure and a very small marginal cost to serve another customer it'll either spiral up (more customers -> lower cost/customer -> more customers -> monopoly) or down (less customers -> higher cost/customer -> less customers -> bankruptcy). If rural ISPs lose any significant fraction of users to Starlink that could easily set off a chain reaction w
Re: (Score:2)
Cable broadband beats satellite for throughput in densely populated areas. Faced with satellite competition, ISPs are going to ask themselves, "What is the probability of this area becoming densely populated enough for this higher efficiency to happen?" My guess is that most of the rural places already served by broadband will be places where the cable was installed because the company is betting on urban growth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Revolutionary (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What exactly is the throughput of each satellite?
Earth surface area is 510e6 km^2. Full equal earth coverage would have each of those 12k satellites will serving 42.5e3 km^2 or a circle with radius 115km. That is going to put massive numbers of people under one single satellite. This can be improved if the network is concentrated between ~50deg latitudes but there is still going to be the issue of, for example, all of New York city served by one link.
This is a potential boon for undeserved rural areas, o
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as you require direct line of sight to the sat (and being about to see multiple sats), people in urban canyons are going to have some difficulty locking onto and maintaining a connection anyway.
So it might be a little bit self-limiting.
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to be able to see multiple satellites at once, so the load can be spread around somewhat.
IIRC the per-satellite throughput was to be roughly 20 gigabit, but would increase over time as the plan was for the satellites to have a five year lifespan.
They've never planned to be able to fully serve dense urban populations. IIRC Musk was quoted as saying that they would only be able to handle around 10% of the potential demand in a big urban area. A significant proportion of the world population lives
Stupititary (Score:1)
It will cause the loss of stable terrestrial infrastructure, and put it up in space where China, Russia, or USA can destroy it for everybody.
Essential communication doesn't belong in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Revolutionary (Score:2)
Except that is exactly what phased array antennas do.
Re: (Score:2)
A flat phased antenna array roughly the size and shape of a pizza box or laptop computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Is anyone else concerned... (Score:2, Interesting)
Eventually, SpaceX wants to build up the network to take in as many as 12,000 satellites in low Earth orbit...
That's fifteen times the number of satellites we currently have in low-Earth orbit. Is anyone else concerned that we may run out of satellite space? Or, alternatively, that every satellite we put up in the atmosphere has a greater likelihood of being struck by a meteor, adding to the minefield of space dust already in LEO?
Interestingly, I just watched Real Engineering's video of SpaceX's StarHoppe [youtube.com]
Re:Is anyone else concerned... (Score:5, Interesting)
LEO has enough atmospheric drag that without regular boosts, debris/satellites will deorbit and burn up within a few months. There won't be a permanent debris field in LEO. Furthermore, satellites are small. At the same altitude, they're all traveling at the same speed to maintain orbit. Reaching end to end on the surface of the Earth, imagine how many cars could drive with a few cars' lengths between them. Now reduce that to 1 cars' length because you know the satellites are never going to slam on their brakes. Also LEO has a larger diameter than the equator, so bump that up by a bit. It's a very large number. Then there are other orbit angles and slightly different altitudes...
Re: (Score:1)
Some good points, although keep in mind that all the “other orbit angles and slightly different altitudes” also must pass directly over the equator twice on each orbit.
This makes the equator a busy place: if you have 100,000 satellites in orbit, then you have 200,000 crossings of it every orbit period (90min or so for LEO).
Also, because the crossing locations are not random but instead occur in slowly drifting patterns due to periodicity and variations in orbital parameter, it is easier for sate
Re: (Score:1)
Drag isn't an issue at the altitudes they (SpaceX and others) have been proposing for these huge LEO constellations.
A lot of the proposed constellations are polar orbits in some sort of Walker configuration. That is a lot of satellites bunching up over the poles at the same time. A hair of eccentricity can probably alleviate issues there (you can't have different orbit sizes or the constellation will fall apart but you can have the altitude vary although keeping the phasing good may be complicated).
Even s
Re:Is anyone else concerned... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, alternatively, that every satellite we put up in the atmosphere has a greater likelihood of being struck by a meteor, adding to the minefield of space dust already in LEO?
What a brilliant idea to protect us from meteors becoming meteorites: A Meteor Minefield! All Musk needs to do, it to put plenty of high explosives in his satellites.
And, if Musk upgrades to nukes on his satellites, we will be protected against asteroid Earth impacts, as well.
Bring It On (Score:2)
The first ISP I might actually trust not to be an oligopolist nightmare of a company.
Re:Bring It On (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem for Astronomical Photography? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if thousands of satellites will mess up astronomy. Right now, when I take a 30 minute exposure, it is very unusual for a satellite to pass through the frame destroying the image. (Maybe a few times per thousand hours of observing.) But with thousands of satellites or potentially one day millions of satellites...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you continue doing astronomy the way you do. Why should a satellite ruin your image? Take 3x 10min shots, or better still 3x30min shots and set your rejection algorithms when you stack to remove the satellite completely.
If you can track a comet and have the resulting stacking algorithm produce an image completely without stars in the background then a satellite won't be much of a problem.
Problems with satellite internet (Score:2, Informative)
My parents live in a rural area and had a satellite internet service through Dish Network called Wild Blue. There are a few problems with satellite internet that I feel one would need to solve before making a true replacement for wired or wireless internet.
1) Weather dependent - Our satellite internet could go out if it was too cloudy, raining, snowing, any kind of a storm, or sometimes on mostly sunny days when a group of clouds just happened to pass through. Very annoying, but not truly awful.
2) Latency i
Re: Problems with satellite internet (Score:2, Informative)
These are LEO (low earth orbit) which, compared to the existing satellite providers, definitely solves the latency issue, and I imagine helps with the weather problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if SpaceX cuts a deal allowing the armed forces to have global internet access on the cheap, and word on the street is that the government is very interested in that.
Re: (Score:2)
Earth stations in this context mean individual customers.
No, You May Not (Score:1)
B) Who is/how are you going to track MILLIONS of objects constantly and perfectly?
C) What a sky mess you will have created, for future generations to deal with.
D) More cancer from the sky (I know most don't believe this, that doesn't mean it's incorrect).
E) Someone here already mentioned disturbing space viewing from the ground.
F) It would make deploying other, useful satellites more difficult, no?
G) Radio interference would increase, no?
H) If SpaceX goes out of busines
Re: No, You May Not (Score:2)
A) Your comment, maybe, global internet access, no.
B) Millions of receivers will be tracking them. They kinda have to, if you want your internets.
C) What's a "sky mess", exactly, and what kind of dealing do you imagine is required?
D) It's not incorrect because most people don't believe it; it's incorrect because it's retarded, and that's why people don't believe it.
E) Someone has mentioned a lot of stupid shit.
F) No.
G) No.
H) If SpaceX goes out of business others will be quite happy to buy those satellites
Earth Station for Boats (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who works on boats at sea, the prospect of having personal broadband at work is a dream come true. However, considering that they're steel boats (so the decks will reflect the signal), what is needed is a way to use a single antenna on the top of the vessel to connect with multiple customers inside the vessel. Employers aren't going to want to pay for very much data for employees, and as an employee, I'd rather pay for my own, so as not to be restricted by what my employer might allocate.
The high end subscription from Starlink is supposed to be 1 gigabit per second service. Sharing that on a boat won't be any problem at all. You could share that to every passenger on a monster cruise ship and still have everyone be fairly content.
In fact, it might be a good idea for any Starlink earth station to look like a hotspot from the consumer side.
This seems likely to happen. The antennas require line of sight to the sky and the signal can not go through walls or ceilings. They're using a very high frequency signal that does not penetrate structures. Since the antenna will likely be roof mounted, it wou
Re: (Score:2)