SpaceX Kicks Off a Busy Year With Launch of 60 More Starlink Satellites Into Space (cnn.com) 75
SpaceX launched its third batch of internet-beaming satellites Monday evening, kicking off what is expected to be a remarkably busy year for the company as it readies its new broadband business. From a report: About 60 small satellites were fired into orbit atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket. Liftoff occurred at 9:19 pm ET from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. This batch of satellites will join more than 100 others that SpaceX deployed last year. And -- if all goes as planned -- there will be 23 more launches by the end of this year, growing SpaceX's Starlink constellation to more than 1,500 satellites. Starlink is already the largest telecom satellite constellation in existence, and SpaceX has regulatory approval to launch a total of more than 10,000 satellites. The company is also seeking approval to deploy another 30,000 on top of that. The goal is to offer affordable internet service to parts of the United States and Canada by mid-2020, and eventually to beam cheap high-speed broadband across the globe. When Starlink service launches, SpaceX says it plans to go directly to market. That means the space-based internet service will compete directly with ground-based providers that dominate the industry with services like U-Verse, Fios and others.
Re:Sucks... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't they have tested that before launching the other 159? This was entirely predictable.
Re:Sucks... (Score:5, Informative)
The typical magnitude of a Starlink pass over the central US is 3,5-7, average about 4,5, theoretical min 2,2. For comparison, a typical ISS pass is mag -2,5-1,5, min -5,9. And remember that the magnitude scale is exponential (10^mag), with low being brighter.
For some other points of reference:
* Venus: -4,92 (min) / -4,14 (mean) / -2,98 (max)
* Jupiter: -2,94 (min) / -2,20 (mean) / -1,86 (max)
* Saturn: -0,55 (min) / 0,46 (mean) / 1,17 (max)
* Sirius (brightest star in the night sky): -1,47
* Polaris: 1,92 (avg)
* Andromeda galaxy (brightest galaxy in the sky): 3,44
* Orion nebula (the fuzzy, barely visible "star" in the middle of the sheath): 4,0
* Ganymede: 4,38
* Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy: 4,5
* Vesta: 5,2 (min) - not discovered until 1807, if this gives you an idea of how hard things of this magnitude are to spot with the naked eye
What wasn't "entirely predictable" was that people would make such a huge deal over such dim satellites, even though there were so many of them (telescopes will spot almost anything manmade, no matter how dim, and already use algorithms to remove them... but dimmer is always better).
So? Time to make them even dimmer.
Re: (Score:3)
Addendum: the Starlink magnitudes I listed were for the peak magnitude on a given pass, not the average. They're only briefly near the peak. A typical 4,5 mag pass will typically start off and end at around 7,5 mag or so. Each satellite at present has about a 20 minute pass once every day or so, with only a couple minutes near peak magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Space is big. Most telescope FOVs are quite small. There are some, like LSST, that have wide FOVs, but they're not designed with the expectation of getting "pristine" shots; they expect streaks and account for them.
Starlink will triple the number of manmade objects in orbit. Which is a "lot", but it's not a sea change.
ABC News got it very wrong (Score:2)
According to ABC news [go.com], Starlink satellites are "brighter than Venus".
This is a pretty good example of fake news, wouldn't you agree?
Re: (Score:2)
At least they are trying to do something about it. One of the satellites launched is testing a non-reflective coating on it that they hope will minimize this issue. https://interestingengineering... [interestin...eering.com]
Pretty interesting for a "service" that we were assured would not cause this problem. I wonder what effect this coating will have on heat via solar absorption - a real problem in the vacuum of space.
Re: Sucks... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You can think of it as a heat insulator / conductor. Since there's no physical contact with air molecules in space, there's no heat transfer via conduction or convection. The only means of heat exchange is radiation. Black acts like a heat conductor in terms of radiating away thermal energy, while silver/white acts like an insul
Re: (Score:2)
Black is a better radiator [wikipedia.org]. So the problem will actually be the black-painted satellite cooling more by radiating more heat out to space. Not absorbing more heat from sunlight. You can think of it as a heat insulator / conductor. Since there's no physical contact with air molecules in space, there's no heat transfer via conduction or convection. The only means of heat exchange is radiation. Black acts like a heat conductor in terms of radiating away thermal energy, while silver/white acts like an insulator. Because most satellites generate more heat than you find in sunlight, their problem is finding ways to get rid of that heat. So painting the satellite black should actually help keep it cool. Though it does add the complication of a greater temperature swing between day and night.
So, Everyone has been doing it incorrectly all these years? Every satellite I've seen has been pretty light colored. Why would we have to wait for Spacex to do this simple thing?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Sucks... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It is good that they are experimenting with reflectivity, but that may not be enough.
For example, what is the reflectivity of the solar panels? Those cannot be totally black.
And what about if the satellite is totally non reflective, but crosses in the path of an object that is being observed. For example, a transit, light curve measurement, or spectrum? It may skew the results of such observations.
If there were only a handful of those satellites, it may not be an issue. But with 10,000 of these, it is bound
Re: (Score:2)
Solar panels can be at angles that reflect light relative to an observer on earth.
For example, the Iridium [earthsky.org] satellite used to cause flares [wikipedia.org].
Some of these were caused by the solar panels, and up to magnitude -3.5, which is brighter than the minimum magnitude of Venus, and brighter than Jupiter and Mars.
Now imagine a small fraction of 10,000 satellite shining into research telescopes, and you see what a problem those will be.
Re: (Score:1)
in five years they'll be burned to a crisp on reentry when they fall back to hell on earth
Re: (Score:2)
in five years they'll be burned to a crisp on reentry when they fall back to hell on earth
So are you saying in 5 years Starlink will shutdown as an ISP and not offer any services? I'm willing to bet for every satellite that falls another will be launched. You can't fall back on the excuse of limited life of equipment when that equipment provides a service that is supposed to run indefinitely.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, in five years one could expect updated designs that will have reduced reflectivity. To whit: Iridium Flares are no more [youtube.com], ever since the latest satellites came online.
Re: (Score:3)
He may have been responding to the comments about the test paint not being used on the original 159 units. Those will all be gone in 5 years, and soon after a majority of the constellation should be using whichever solution proved best at mitigating the issue.
Re: (Score:1)
tank yu fo engrish transration
Re: (Score:2)
These reflections are temporary as the satellites climb to apogee and the volume of space is enormous compared with the number of satellites being deployed by all the proposed operators.
Starlink is a tremendous threat to oppressive regimes and incumbent monopolies that fund them. I am glad they're shitting bricks and "but astronomy" is the best scare story they can come up with.
A major revolution in Internet usage is on the nearterm horizon.
Suck it Comcast, Verizon (Score:4, Interesting)
This cannot come quickly enough. If the price is even within spitting distance of my current service, I'll jump in a heartbeat just not to deal with those leaches.
I wonder what the terms will be and what the data caps will be like.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
If they can truly keep pings around 25-35ms they may just be viable as a replacement. A lot of the gaming streaming services (which I have used and enjoy and I believe will be very popular in the future) require 20ms or less for optimum performance, but sub 50ms is acceptable for all but fast-twitch type games; which is fine for me as i'm an old dude that twitches, but not fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's terrestrial speeds. I'd love to see anything under 300ms latency reported on satellite connections. You can still game, just not latency sensitive gaming.
Re: (Score:3)
You know that 300ms is for GEO sats, right? Starlink is a LEO sat, and will actually have better latency than even a perfectly straight ground fiber. One of its expected markets will be high-speed traders.
https://youtu.be/m05abdGSOxY [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink is a LEO sat, and will actually have better latency than even a perfectly straight ground fiber.
Nope:
a) the way is longer - so it is already completely impossible
b) you always have a router, repeating the packages, which costs about 1ms
Re: (Score:2)
Completely impossible only if you don't realise that:
a) the speed of light in a fiber optic cable is only about 2c / 3. In LEO it's pretty damn close to c.
b) you'll most likely actually have less routers and/or repeaters along the way.
Re: (Score:2)
You most likely have a copper wire, and there the information is transmitted close to vacuum light speed.
But you are right, I oversaw "fibre".
Nevertheless via satellite you have more than 2x the way ... supposing one satellite makes a point to point connection for you to a close nearby ground based backbone.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of FIOS, FTTH is pretty rare. But you're absolutely going over fiber once you get past the last mile hop so the large majority of your data round trip is via fiber.
Also, it depends on what datacenters get starlink uplinks but you could potentially skip quite a few hops which easily balance out the (arguably but unlikely) longer hop to LEO and back.
Re: (Score:2)
A ping like that is impossible ... unless you are only connecting to very local services.
Re: (Score:2)
We maintain a sub-20ms ping to AWS from one of our offices. It's an idealized situation, sure, but it's very possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder though, is the Starlink Terminal going to be affordable for installation on individual homes? I thought phased array antenna systems were the domain of tactical aircraft radar systems that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
The user terminals only need one beam; pretty sure that's not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hell, the entire satellites are probably only in the hundreds-of-thousands price range, given the numbers that people have mentioned.
I've seen (I forget where) suggestions that the user terminals will be a few hundred dollars each, with the usual "buy it up front, or lease for the duration of your service" options. That may just have been speculation, though. Either way, I'm quite sure Musk & co. have conside
Re: (Score:2)
A phased array antenna for the home consists of about 100 or 1000 small spikes of metal ... nothing fancy.
Radar systems, need to send and receive their own signal, and large phased array systems, used for weather radar and to detect stealth bombers, cough cough, need several acres of land.
I know space is big. like really big, but... (Score:3)
Re: I know space is big. like really big, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no.
Half a million bits of trash, laid out in a line ~40 megameters long (the circumference of the planet we're sitting on), leaves 80 meters between pieces, not 12.5 km (12.5 km per piece is correct for 3200 pieces of debris, by the by).
Re: (Score:2)
Do the math on the cubic kilometers per satellite - it's an enlightening exercise in remembering high-school geometry.
Launch Cadence (Score:4, Informative)
spaceflightnow.com [spaceflightnow.com]
In short: yes, it'll be a busy year of rocketry. Lots of Starlink, a number of commercial payloads, some gov't, and Crew Dragon.
Circumvent internet blockades? (Score:2)
anyone with an antenna dish can access internet?
How big would the antenna for this need to be anyway?
Does the satellites fly over China for instance?
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine SpaceX needs permission to offer service in countries, but physically there's no reason why people in China couldn't get on the network.
The initial "shell" is orbiting at a 53 degree inclination so you, basically, get coverage from around 53 degrees north to 53 degrees south. A little more than that but, roughly around there. The International Space Station orbits at 51.6 degrees, so if you look at the area of the world that passes over Starlink is close to that, slightly more expansive.
Oth
Re:Circumvent internet blockades? (Score:4, Informative)
Incidentally communications capability from south pole was a problem when they did the black hole picture last year, one of the radio telescopes is there and they had to wait quite some time on weather to fly out a crate of hard drives. There are sat coms available at poles, but they can't handle that much data.
Re: (Score:3)
That's actually a very common way for the telescopes in the Chilean Andes to transfer data to be analyzed in the Northern Hemisphere. As the old saying went, "Never underestimate the data transfer rate of a station wagon full of backup tapes." Just change that to DHL boxes and SSDs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Buuuuut how would local governments stop you? Theoretically all you need is a power supply. Unless the transceiver has a GPS type unit in it, with explicit and updated black lists... I suppose you could always jam / spoof the GPS locally?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Currently in practice that means that no one sells to a country they aren't registered to. There is a huge grey market for cross border satellite receiver shipping. Some of the more restrictive countries have been hunting down the grey market dishes and dealing with the owners. I'm not sure Starlink is going to play things much differently here since they are marketing to transportation companies who would always be on the move and would be very annoyed if they lost internet access because they traveled
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Circumvent internet blockades? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The SpaceX antennas are phased arrays so that the satellite can be electronically tracked by steering the RF beam (main lobe). These antenna's are not traditional dishes that are used for geo-stationary satellites.
Re: (Score:3)
Starlink uses highly directional beams from phased array antennas. The footprint from each beam is very small; there's not going to be meaningful bleed. They can target what areas do (and do not) get service quite precisely.
In fact, one of the reasons they need so many satellites is that each one can only put out so many beams at once, and each beam can only serve a tiny area, so they need a lot of satellites just to get full coverage of, say, any given large city. These are highly directional beams.
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely they will just make it illegal. Radio equipment is regulated in every country so that wouldn't be a stretch.
Technically, it won't stop you, but if you get caught, prison definitely will. And I don't think these things will be hard to detect.
For a more technical solution, I suppose Starlink could pinpoint the location of a transmitter very precisely. Because it is made of many satellites, it could work like GPS in reverse. If the transmission is caught by several satellites, I believe that with g
Re: (Score:2)
Each satellite has a limited number of beams, and each beam can be pointed at a wide range of angles but has a tiny footprint (something like a few city blocks? they're extremely narrow and directional). There aren't anywhere near enough beams on each satellite to blanket the entire area that the satellite could theoretically cover. Additionally, running the radios takes power that could be used for orbital maneuvers (ion engines are power-hungry beasts) or charging / conserving power for night. Why would S
Re: (Score:2)
Yes to all, unless SpaceX bows to political pressure. Technologically, everybody in every place on Earth will be able to speak to each other freely. The social ramifications of this are hard to understate.
The antenna is "pizza-box" sized (NY Large) so these are for fixed installations at this point.
One would expect portable units in a few years and antennas integrated into Tesla roofs a few years after that.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a very good reason why not, and it has to do with where the other end of the link is. At least at first it will be all simple (but fast) bounces from the user to a ground station. That means that a "friendly" ground station has to be in range of a bounce, whether or not it detects your location and refuses service due to political boundaries. The laser links will probably only be between adjacent statellites in the same orbit, but by that time you can be sure they've worked out the political bounda
Re: (Score:2)
Does the satellites fly over China for instance?
The earth is a ball.
China is on the earth.
Satellites fly in circles around a ball that happens to contain China.
Does that answer your question, or do I need to explain that such circles are always around the earth center?
You could craft nicely choreographed orbits that never go over China, e.g. as in a GSO satellite ... but those are useless for internet.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (Score:4, Funny)
Will it be possible (Score:2)
Re:Will it be possible (Score:4, Informative)
> Will it be possible to route traffic between two end-user nodes on the Starlink network in a decentralized fashion without the data traffic traversing ground-based infrastructure?
Yes, this is a selling point for nodes at far ends of the Earth - the speed of light in vacuum is much greater than the speed of light in optical fiber, so the cost to ~200km orbit quickly evaporates with distance. "Freakin lasers in Space" and all that.
Metro Ethernet and the like still make sense for local connections, but maybe not VPN's on different providers with a distant peering point.
Re: (Score:2)
The ground stations should be able to bounce back up to another satellite. That would only need to be a simple forwarding without going through "infrastructure".
https://youtu.be/m05abdGSOxY [youtu.be]
Re: Latency (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
So many fools thinking "satellite" automatically means "high latency" as though the latency of GEO bounces isn't simply a matter of physics (lightspeed delay) required to go 36000 KM (if you're lucky and the satellite is right overhead, meaning you live on the equator). Starlink satellites are going to be mostly less than 2% as far away as geostationary satellites, with the obvious implication for latency.
Re: (Score:2)
Latency will often be even better than a straight fiber on the ground. High-speed traders will go nuts for this.
https://youtu.be/m05abdGSOxY [youtu.be]