[HN Gopher] Starlink is now on all seven continents, enabled by ...
___________________________________________________________________
Starlink is now on all seven continents, enabled by its space laser
network
Author : _Microft
Score : 173 points
Date : 2022-09-14 16:09 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| benj111 wrote:
| SPACE LASERS!!!
|
| Sorry. The inner child in me got far too excited by this.
| rcarr wrote:
| I read the title and couldn't help but hear it as something
| Steve Carrell would exclaim really loudly in some sitcom.
| madspindel wrote:
| One step closer to Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| It's now the Space Development Agency's (SDA) National Defense
| Space Architecture (NDSA). But yes, Starlink looks a hell of a
| lot like the Transport Layer of the NDSA, which is meant to be
| a mesh network comprising of thousands of satellites in LEO.
|
| Either Starlink _is_ the Transport Layer of NDSA, or it proves
| that SpaceX has the technical ability to create the Transport
| Layer (no other company does.)
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I really wouldn't put it that way, though. The core part of
| SDI, the missile defense, isn't part of NDSA. And the
| "transport layer" is something new to NDSA as far as I can
| tell.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| It depends on which version of SDI you're talking about,
| there were numerous proposed architectures using different
| technologies, updated through the years as technology
| changed. In several of the proposals, orbital Boost
| Surveillance and Tracking Systems (BSTS) would communicate
| with orbital interceptors using inter-satellite laser
| links. Brilliant Pebbles particularly called for thousands
| of orbital interceptors with IR sensors to track missiles,
| but to arrange an intercept in time a Pebble would need to
| receive track information from the BSTS, or other pebbles.
| The challenge of doing that with thousands of pebbles was
| one of the factors that sank the proposal (the other big
| problem being the difficulty of actually launching
| thousands of interceptors into LEO.)
|
| The mesh network aspect of NDSA / Starlink is new insofar
| as they've now figured out how to do what they wanted to do
| back then.
|
| Space-based interceptors _are_ missing from NDSA as it 's
| described in public. But all the technical challenges have
| been resolved, what remains is the political challenge.
| Since the space-based interceptors are the politically
| contentious part, if they _were_ going to do this it would
| make sense for them to build the 'benign' parts first
| while not talking about the rest.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| Cool, maybe one day they'll post a phone number or an email you
| can reach them on.
| TheCowboy wrote:
| [Deleted]
| wsinks wrote:
| Totally agree. Not sure I care about Starlink.
|
| Chatted once on a Webex with Chris Hadfield about 6-12 months
| ago, who said that the service was somewhat better and more
| reliable than his current satellite connection, but also that
| it wasn't necessarily good enough for a change in mindset. He
| knew that sometimes he wouldn't have good enough connection for
| video calls out there, and that was ok by him.
|
| I don't think he was thinking about the space dust / negative
| externalities
|
| I find no Google results that are appropriate for "Starlink
| satellite retrieval"
|
| The Starlink website notes "95% of "all components of this
| design will quickly burn in Earth's atmosphere at the end of
| each satellite's lifecycle".
|
| It's amazing that it's already looking like this:
| https://satellitemap.space/
|
| And of course, it's not black and white. Took me a bit
| longer... had to remember that Corporate Social Responsibility
| departments exist, but in February 2022 SpaceX put out a
| statement at least: https://www.spacex.com/updates/
|
| Funny - so they've done a reasonable amount of work to minimize
| space junk, which is great! Absolutely no mention of helping
| out astronomers with the line of sight problem.
| cedricd wrote:
| You're definitely right, but one mitigating factor is that
| Starlink satellites are in a pretty low orbit. They'll
| naturally decay relatively quickly and drop out of orbit at end
| of life.
|
| Edit: a link that goes over some of this
| https://www.spacex.com/updates/#sustainability
| c54 wrote:
| I agree that the debris problem is one of those commons-type
| issues that'll cost way more to fix than if we'd prevented it
| in the first place.
|
| However, for starlink specifically aren't the satellites all
| low enough to deorbit and burn up automatically within 5 years?
| This should eliminate the orbital debris problem for this
| constellation specifically.
|
| A different problem is what happens with all the burnt up
| aluminum and other metals in the high atmosphere. I saw a post
| mentioning this once recently but also don't know much about
| the scale or effects of this problem.
| TheCowboy wrote:
| [Deleted]
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| If something perturbs a Starlink orbit, it might raise
| apogee but would also lower perigee, which means it would
| fall out of the sky even faster.
| profile53 wrote:
| I think this comes from a misunderstanding of orbital dynamics.
| Without *active* effort by the engines, these sort of
| satellites are low enough they drop out of orbit within a year
| or two because of friction against the atmosphere. Basically,
| these solve their own junk problem
| eagerpace wrote:
| They are in a very low earth orbit designed to naturally decay
| and deorbit in years instead of decades. Yes, there are a lot
| of them but they did design for this. Not nearly as big a
| problem as satellites in higher orbits which keep being
| destroyed into thousands of pieces intentionally with no care
| for their consequences.
| wyager wrote:
| This isn't a serious problem in LEO. Absolute worst case
| scenario from starlink is we decide there's too much space crap
| and we wait 5 years for LEO to clear out.
| ck2 wrote:
| In case you missed this amazing video last week
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/x7oowo/starlink_sate...
| mlindner wrote:
| Yes this happens right after they're launched. They're no
| longer visible after a few weeks.
| blantonl wrote:
| I can't imagine the engineering involved to be able to calculate
| and maintain a space based laser network with thousands of
| vehicles traveling in orbit.
|
| That is some real deal holyfield physics and math knowledge right
| there.
| mr_woozy wrote:
| capableweb wrote:
| According to their coverage map (https://www.starlink.com/map)
| there is no coverage in Africa nor Asia, unless I'm missing
| something obvious. Or if there are new continents I'm not aware
| of.
| markdown wrote:
| I wonder what's up with that dark spot in Western Australia.
| Maursault wrote:
| > Or if there are new continents I'm not aware of.
|
| Antarctica. Thank you for this.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| Perhaps it's available in all seven continents the way Tesla
| cars have full self driving.
| iso1631 wrote:
| Maritime coverage shows African and Asian coasts in the
| Mediterranean
| mchusma wrote:
| This is availability for purchase map, not coverage.
| coding123 wrote:
| To expand, they get their internet from ground stations. If
| they had just one or two ground stations, like in CA and TX,
| then everyone would be depending on the laser network and the
| entire operation would be slow. So they can't sell to a lot
| of people that would just be getting laser coverage.
| capableweb wrote:
| What is the difference? If I pick an address in Africa, it
| tells me "Service date is unknown at this time", does that
| mean they have coverage there but I cannot purchase it if I
| live there?
|
| So I could, if I live in Africa, buy it and send it to an
| address in Europe, go pick it up and then use it from my home
| in Africa?
| heyda wrote:
| The Starlink dishes have GPS data reported so if you aren't
| authorized in an area it will be disabled. That said, this
| coverage map looks like it's for commercial sale, Africa is
| big complicated continent, if you look at Nigeria for
| instance, it says availability starting in Q4 2022, which
| means they likely already have some ground stations
| installed. If the ground stations are installed and the
| spectrum is allowed then a local government/school could
| probably purchase a Starlink dish legally and have it work
| right now.
|
| All they need is one dish installed on every continent for
| the 'all seven continents supported' to TECHNICALLY be
| correct, obviously this tweet is just marketing. It's still
| pretty cool to see that many incredibly under-served
| communities in South America/Africa/Asia will be able to be
| served considering running physical infrastructure is very
| expensive.
| db48x wrote:
| Hover more thoroughly. Different countries and regions have
| different tooltips.
|
| But no, you would not be able to ship the user terminal to
| Africa and use it. You can't even move it more than a few
| dozen miles from the address they have on file and keep
| using it, unless you have the more expensive license for
| mobile users (think RVs and boats and such). Even then it
| stops working if you enter an area where service is
| unavailable.
| capableweb wrote:
| So realistically then, " This is availability for
| purchase map, not coverage. " makes no sense, because it
| is for a fact not available in Africa.
| randyrand wrote:
| The difference is pretty big!
|
| Without coverage, no one can use Starlink.
|
| If there is coverage, state governments can allow Starlink
| usage.
| db48x wrote:
| That map doesn't distinguish between waiting for enough
| satellites to be in the sky overhead and waiting for permission
| from the local government. For better or worse, each country's
| government has to approve the use of any particular frequency,
| as well as things like transmission power.
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| If you mouseover the countries you can see that some of them
| are "Pending regulatory approval".
| state_less wrote:
| > For better or worse, each country's government has to
| approve the use of any particular frequency, as well as
| things like transmission power.
|
| I think it's for the worse if governments disapprove the use
| of Starlink. Starlink should at least be allowed to send out
| an SOS message. It could save a life out on the frontier.
| tuatoru wrote:
| > waiting for enough satellites to be in the sky overhead
|
| Seriously, wtf? Look at some orbits. Satellites do not sit
| stationary over one location, except the ones called
| "geosynchronous satellites".
|
| https://satellitemap.space/#
|
| Edit: if Starlink is not available in a country it is for one
| of three reasons:-
|
| - the country is not at the top of Starlink's priority list
| for connection (commercial reasons)
|
| - the country wants nothing to do with anything based in the
| USA (politics)
|
| - the country has an obstructive bureaucracy (corruption,
| stupidity).
| capableweb wrote:
| That makes perfect sense. If the service is not available,
| it's not available. The reason why doesn't make a difference
| "how available" it is. Either it is, or it isn't.
|
| Seems a bit like false marketing to say "Starlink is now on
| all seven continents" when it's more like "Starlink has
| satellites over seven continents but you can only actually
| use it on five of them"
| gpm wrote:
| Eh, it depends on who "you" are. I'm pretty sure the USAF
| can use them on all seven continents. Meanwhile I, not
| having a contract, can't use them on any continent.
| derefr wrote:
| Do you mean to say that the USAF can use devices that
| cause arbitrary interference on frequency bands that the
| country they're operating in hasn't reserved for such
| uses, and said countries tolerate that?
|
| Those countries' poor radio engineers...
| cronix wrote:
| The satellites are already there, like gps satellites are
| already there. I'm assuming they're transmitting whether
| or not people on the ground have connection or whether or
| not the government "approves" it.
| gpm wrote:
| Uh, yes. The USAF uses electronic warfare systems that
| don't just accidentally cause such interference, but do
| so intentionally. Much like every other major military.
|
| Which isn't to say that they _would_ operate those
| systems (or starlink) in peacetime without the approval
| of the host country, just that they _can_ use those
| systems at any time... While I don 't know for a fact
| that SpaceX has left the decision on where to use
| starlink up to them, I'm pretty sure that would be the
| case.
| womod wrote:
| I think the radio engineers suffer at the hands of
| poorly-shielded switch-mode power supplies and
| inadvertent spark-gap transmitters caused by aging
| powerline infrastructure more than anything else.
| capableweb wrote:
| samatman wrote:
| You come across quite poorly in this exchange.
| capableweb wrote:
| Might be so. Guess it seemed obvious to me that we're
| talking past each other if one is talking about "What's
| available for consumers today" vs "What the military in
| the US has access to", but I digress.
| frumper wrote:
| If someone can use it on all 7 continents, I'd say that
| it's available to use on all 7 continents. If you can't
| use it on all 7, I suggest you keep offering more money
| until you can.
| db48x wrote:
| Well, if you hover over various countries where it's not
| yet available, it will tell you when they estimate that it
| will be available. Nigeria says "Q4 2022", which is not
| very far away. In order to be sure of having service
| available in a month or two, they have surely already built
| a ground station or two, printed some instruction booklets
| in Nigerian, hired some Nigerian sales reps, etc.
| elil17 wrote:
| FYI English is the official language of Nigeria, and the
| one most people who can afford satellite internet speak
| day-to-day. No need to translate!
| db48x wrote:
| Maybe that's why they're getting it months before anyone
| else :)
| capableweb wrote:
| There are something like 10-15 countries in Africa where
| English is the official language, and there is almost as
| many English speakers in Africa as in the US in total :)
| gpm wrote:
| It's much more likely to do with licensing radio
| bandwidth.
| capableweb wrote:
| Yeah, I saw that when you hover, it shows you an estimate
| of when it'll be available. But saying that it's
| available in X weeks/months/years in Africa directly
| conflicts with the tweet saying "Starlink is now on all
| seven continents" when it's not available in Africa or
| Asia right now.
| parineum wrote:
| I think you're being a little obtuse here. The point of
| the tweet seems to be that the laser links are up
| enabling a true global network without the need for
| nearby ground stations.
|
| They have coverage over all seven continents because of
| that and I have very little doubt that it's been tested
| in those continents as well. "Availability" here seems to
| be a proxy for "is technically solved" vs. "is
| commercially available".
|
| If you're asking "what's the difference?" Think about the
| war in Ukraine. Starlink wasn't (and isn't?) commercially
| available there but was able to be deployed in an
| emergency.
| kingkawn wrote:
| Ahh yes, the language called Nigerian...
| gamegoblin wrote:
| The SpaceX tweet says "Starlink is now on all seven
| continents", not "Starlink is commercially available for
| general use on all seven continents".
|
| Non-commercial users such as the US military are using it on
| bases, ships, and aircraft worldwide. Antarctica is notably a
| continent without US military bases, so the "on all seven
| continents" claim was not complete until these scientists got a
| hold of a dish.
| dantondwa wrote:
| I don't like Starlink. It increases light pollution, even in
| places without much human activity, which is a disaster for
| astronomers.
|
| Moreover, sending satellites to space is really inefficient. It
| wastes a lot of energy and pollutes a lot. To increase coverage,
| the amount of satellite they'll need will be more and more. And
| the skies will become more and more full of space junk (each
| satellite lives for 7 years).
|
| I think there are other solutions. But of course, other solutions
| do not favour Elon Musk as much.
| mlindner wrote:
| > It increases light pollution
|
| Not the conventional definition of light pollution. The
| conventional definintion of light pollution is sky glow, which
| is not caused by satellites.
|
| Further, the satellites are around 6th magnitude, which is
| below human eye visible, but certainly still problematic to
| astronomers.
|
| > which is a disaster for astronomers.
|
| A "disaster" is overstating it. Take a look at this study for
| example https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/palomar-survey-
| instrument...
|
| > "There is a small chance that we would miss an asteroid or
| another event hidden behind a satellite streak, but compared to
| the impact of weather, such as a cloudy sky, these are rather
| small effects for ZTF."
|
| .
|
| > Moreover, sending satellites to space is really inefficient.
| It wastes a lot of energy and pollutes a lot.
|
| Space launch is a miniscule portion of global emissions and
| there is no reasonable way it would seriously contribute to
| global emissions going forward. Further, as the fuel costs are
| such a small portion of launch costs, it would be easy enough
| to produce the fuel via direct carbon capture and have it still
| be economic, which is a path forward in the future.
|
| > To increase coverage, the amount of satellite they'll need
| will be more and more.
|
| The goal is never to serve high density areas. It's to serve
| areas that are functionally impossible to serve any other way
| without massive government subsidy.
|
| > And the skies will become more and more full of space junk
| (each satellite lives for 7 years).
|
| You've misheard. Those satellites don't stay in orbit very long
| as their orbits are so low. They'll deorbit within a few years,
| even if completely lost, but normally they'll de-orbit
| automatically at the end of life, producing no debris.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| > But of course, other solutions do not favour Elon Musk as
| much
|
| How a single man can be responsible to so much nuisance to the
| rest of humanity...
| mlindner wrote:
| By the media turning him into a boogeyman and simultaneously
| a poster child.
| justrudd wrote:
| That's fair. I will say that my parents are loving it. They
| live in a very rural area.
|
| Until Starlink, the fastest speed they could get from Verizon
| (the only provider they have access to) was maybe 4 to 5Mbps.
| And it was still capped at 20GiB a month. Starlink gets them 60
| to 70Mbps during overcast/rainy days and 100 to 120Mbps on
| sunny days with no cap.
|
| I know it isn't altruistic of Starlink to cover these areas,
| but at least they are. I can now see my parents via video chat
| multiple times a month vs. seeing them a couple of times a
| year.
|
| Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, the cable providers, etc. just don't
| care about them. And rightfully so. They are an extremely small
| market. It annoys me how much money the US government has given
| to these ISPs in the hopes that they'll expand rural access,
| but they never do. Or they use the money to pay lobbyist to say
| "4g is fine for them"
| tuatoru wrote:
| Fortunately, NIMBYism isn't holding things up in low earth
| orbit.
| ctdonath wrote:
| SX is actively solving the light pollution problem.
|
| A few satellites orbiting use far fewer materials to provide
| coverage of the entire planet than doing so terrestrially
| would.
|
| As Starlink satellites age out they de-orbit. No space junk.
|
| You're welcome to propose & implement better solutions. Until
| then, this is the very best humans can do to lift all of
| humanity with minimal environmental impact.
| _joel wrote:
| What solutions?
| matco11 wrote:
| Perhaps, this is a message to Apple
|
| ...Availability on all continents might be a requirement to
| qualify as a provider for satellite emergency services like the
| one Apple will soon offer with iPhone 14 Pro
| _joel wrote:
| They're already doing that with the T-Mobile deal announced
| recently.
| wffurr wrote:
| Does this mean Starlink maritime service now works at sea and not
| just in coastal areas?
| mlindner wrote:
| It has the potential to yes, assuming there's enough capacity
| now.
| seanw444 wrote:
| That title is a phrase I'd only expect to hear in a scifi movie.
| The future is now.
| chrisjc wrote:
| I thought that laser connectivity wasn't going to be available
| until V2 of the satellite went in to operation/orbit, and that's
| not going to happen until SpaceX gets Starship or the modified
| Falcon off the ground?
| wmf wrote:
| No, they've been promising laser links with (IIRC) v1.5 for a
| while.
| _joel wrote:
| I very much doubt v2 will be on F9, they're much bigger so the
| 47 they can fly now will drop significantly (if it can even fit
| in the extended fairing, I'm not sure it can).
|
| They've got a 'pez dispenser' already worked out too for
| starship, just need to light that candle now. Ramped up testing
| again last week so I'm hoping it'll be soon (said that 12
| months ago)
| guardiangod wrote:
| No need to doubt.
|
| https://spacenews.com/spacex-adds-falcon-9-back-to-second-
| ge...
| _joel wrote:
| I mean, I know they've been taking the financial hit for
| the starlink launches as they ramp up the subscriber base,
| but this seems really ineffective.
| mlindner wrote:
| No, they've been on all v1.5 satellites that have been
| launching for a little over a year now.
| rpmisms wrote:
| Man, I love when sci-fi becomes reality. It's the cool things
| that get me excited for some parts of the future, and this is
| exactly that.
| warinukraine wrote:
| rambambram wrote:
| Before I bookmark your comment, any chance for an
| explanation? I'm very curious.
| inawarminister wrote:
| Huh? It's in the specs for Starlink satellite version two
| since the beginning.
|
| You even have research papers detailing the mechanism
|
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350575864_Laser_Int.
| ..
|
| News from last year https://www.satellitetoday.com/broadband/
| 2021/01/25/latest-s...
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Let me guess, "Elon is a liar therefore everything SpaceX
| does or says is a lie"
|
| I bet the satellites and rockets are fake too, right
| _warinukraine_? He says they exist, therefore they must not.
| rpmisms wrote:
| What, exactly, is unrealistic about lasers?
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| The trick is aiming the lasers accurately enough, but
| that's merely a challenging engineering problem. With their
| experience and track record, there's no reason to think
| SpaceX can't/haven't managed it.
|
| With Elon Musk companies you need to be wary of claimed
| intentions and future plans, because exaggerations and lies
| abound in those domains. Don't hold your breath for FSD or
| Mars colonies. But when SpaceX claims they've _already_
| accomplished something, they 're almost certainly telling
| the truth about it.
| Bubble_Pop_22 wrote:
| rtsil wrote:
| > with very little to show for.
|
| The billions of people whose food and personal safety rely on
| data from weather satellites should at least count a bit
| above "very little".
|
| So do the people like me who can't use a paper map to save
| their lives, and for which GNSS has been a life-changer in
| their ordinary life.
| capableweb wrote:
| > with very little to show for
|
| Global internet coverage would be amazing, and definitely
| something I and many others would consider worth it. Not just
| for people to browse Twitter/TikTok/social media, but for
| access to things like Wikipedia and various other knowledge-
| bases, and communication protocols.
| Bubble_Pop_22 wrote:
| The world's poor are ahead of us in this realm. Lagos will
| clock 100M people by the end of the century.
|
| Megalopolis are only getting bigger. Like luxury EVs ,
| starlink is aimed at the particular preferences of the RV
| crowd and the yacht crowd.
|
| Improving the quality of life of the avg. consumer is never
| the goal. The goal is to have rich people get excited about
| some luxury product so that they immediately log on their
| Fidelity account and buy the stock of the company which
| puts itself out there as the so called leader in that
| luxury product niche.
|
| It turns out that too much optimism about the future can
| damage an economy just as much as not enough faith in the
| future. This is exactly what has happened with the
| "everything bubble".
| ctdonath wrote:
| Tell that to the Hoh tribe, and many similar, who had
| zero data connectivity until Starlink connected the tribe
| to the world for just $150/mo.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Luxuries, niche products and novelties today are
| commonplace tomorrow. Many of those things have benefits
| to society. I'd say advancing high-speed non-terrestrial
| Internet is a good goal.
|
| I don't see how your comment on megacities aligns with
| the other comment about enhanced communications. How is
| Lagos "ahead"?
| Bubble_Pop_22 wrote:
| Megalopolis means an easy win for optical fiber for
| internet solutions
|
| Satellite internet only makes sense if people are
| scattered around, but we are seeing the opposite
| phenomenon both in the developed world as well as the
| developing world.
|
| Even hipsters are moving from LA to Portland not from LA
| to some small town with population of 500.
| chucksmash wrote:
| Your cynicism is uncalled for IMO but also misses the
| mark factually.
|
| SpaceX is not a publicly traded company so the specific
| way you've chosen to express your cynicism (this is just
| for pumping stock prices!) isn't even applicable.
|
| Starlink might eventually be spun off into a separate
| publicly traded company - some statements to this effect
| have been made - but that's not what's happening right
| now.
| Bubble_Pop_22 wrote:
| > SpaceX is not a publicly traded company
|
| I don't think it matters. TikTok isn't traded either but
| equity price is pumped up anyways.
|
| Likewise Brad Pitt is not publicly traded but the
| excitement that people have for him prompts Tag Heur to
| pay him millions for a picture wearing one of their
| watches.
|
| Finally everybody and their brother knows that Tesla and
| all the other BS vaporware companies under the same
| ownership are gonna merge at some point and be listed.
| rpmisms wrote:
| No, I didn't get any RNA anything. I said _parts_ of the
| future for a reason. I don 't see a connection between space
| lasers and MRNA therapy.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| To quote a very wise cartoon: Why not both?
| akira2501 wrote:
| It doesn't seem like our obsession with space caused any
| difficulty in printing RNA. Progress is not a quantity, you
| can't subtract from over here and add it over there by whim.
| Humans are also not born into service to their fellow humans,
| so there is no ethical mechanism to even dictate this.
|
| Meanwhile, space networks have enabled global communications,
| global rescue, and global positioning. All exceptionally
| important mechanisms, arguably, more important than using one
| of several possible mechanisms to fight a flu.
|
| Given that there were many other possible mechanisms at our
| disposal, the desire to push mRNA technology on everyone
| might be considered a medical technology fetishism of it's
| own.
| ROTMetro wrote:
| Space programs have:
|
| Improved global shipping (reduced costs, increased safety,
| etc). Improve global crop yields with understanding
| planting times, harvest times, etc. Reduced geopolitical
| tensions (way less secrets, no more dangerous airplane
| overflights, ability to monitor compliance remotely).
| Enabled safer air travel (weather satellites, ADS-B).
| Understand global warming (using monitoring satellites).
| Made archeological discoveries. Helped fight poaching in
| Africa.
|
| These are a few of the outcomes I know off the top of my
| head. But yes, what have aerospace programs done for
| anyone?
| cube2222 wrote:
| Does this mean they've figured out satellite-to-satellite data
| transfer?
| sp332 wrote:
| This is the first mention of it working that I've seen. I
| wonder if it's a limited deployment for Antarctica or the
| beginning of a large rollout.
| cube2222 wrote:
| That's basically what I'm wondering about. Is this an
| unfortunate headline, or are we really there already?
| sp332 wrote:
| It's taken straight from the Twitter account https://mobile
| .twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1570073223005622274 I just don't
| see any other info about it.
| mlindner wrote:
| It can't function in Antarctica without the satellite
| links, so it's already there.
| thatcherc wrote:
| Yup, I think that's the implication of the "space laser
| network". The plan for Starlink has been to have laser
| crosslinks between the satellites to provide coverage in places
| where the satellites can't directly see a ground station.
| deelowe wrote:
| That's the plan, but it's an unimaginably difficult task.
| Many have speculated they wouldn't be able to pull it off at
| scale.
| minhazm wrote:
| Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand why it's an
| unimaginably difficult task. The satellites are operating
| in a vacuum with no weather interference or anything and
| have line of sight to each other. I would think that it
| should actually be easy to pull off, and actually should
| get easier at scale since the distances between individual
| satellites would shrink and would be easier to align the
| laser links.
| samatman wrote:
| I see it as one of those enormously difficult and yet
| practical things, like photolithography. The human sweat
| to produce this system is surely measured in decades, if
| not centuries depending on whose effort we want to count.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Mirror tracking is hard. Low orbit stuff etches
| everything plastic with oxygen.
| count wrote:
| They're also moving in different, independent directions
| on different planes at extremely high speeds...
| wmf wrote:
| Some people have speculated that laser links within the
| same plane (where satellites are stationary relative to
| each other) are working and the others are not.
| lsaferite wrote:
| > at extremely high speeds
|
| Absolute speeds or relative to each other speeds?
| gpm wrote:
| Both, they have two sets of orbital paths at roughly 90
| degrees to eachother (I'm just eyeballing it, it's
| probably not exactly 90). With more sets if you count the
| satellites in polar orbits.
|
| Though they could, if they needed to, only connect to the
| satellites flying at low relative speed.
| mlindner wrote:
| There's no need for them to transfer data to satellites
| crossing in perpendicular directions to each other.
| gpm wrote:
| Right, that's what I was trying to say with my last
| sentence.
|
| It would sometimes reduce latency if they're able to
| though.
| mlindner wrote:
| Satellites in the same plane aren't moving at all
| relative to each other and satellites in adjacent planes
| move very little relative to each other.
| deelowe wrote:
| I don't remember the details, but I believe one of the
| issues is that the distances are extremely long.
| mlindner wrote:
| If they wouldn't have been able to pull it off why would
| they have launched the satellites? I don't get why people
| constantly underestimate the ability of Elon Musk companies
| to points beyond what is reasonable. They're not going to
| just do something that's very likely to fail. That'd be
| completely uneconomic and unaffordable.
| AdamJacobMuller wrote:
| I think they have and are at least trialing it? I saw a post on
| reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/StarlinkEngineering/ I think)
| where someone was showing how they can tell based on satellite
| positions and latency numbers that they are definitely
| receiving service even when satellites had no reach to ground
| stations.
| Jupe wrote:
| Cool, time to get one of these:
| https://www.concordaerospace.com/products/jewish-space-laser...
|
| :)
| erikpukinskis wrote:
| Does this mean we'll start seeing more Antarctic TikTokers?
| Exciting!
| FeistySkink wrote:
| A new ice bucket challenge.
| dakr wrote:
| There's a 300 degree club at the south pole. Strip, jump in
| 200 degF water, then run outside around the building where
| it's -100 degF.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I think it is one of these cases where everyone agrees that
| the Fahrenheit scale should be used.
| aaronax wrote:
| I was skeptical that 200F water would not cause almost
| immediate damage.
|
| Turns out this challenge involves a 200F sauna, so 200F
| air, not water.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| One thing that may be related to Starlink, or not - it happened
| to me already twice that I was just randomly gazing at stars and
| noticed long streak of satellites in a row. One around last
| christmas and one few weeks ago. In places cca 1500km apart in
| Europe.
|
| First one the satellites were evenly spaced, sometimes 1-2 were
| 'missing' and I could see between gap in the clouds maybe 7-8 at
| the same time. Altogether maybe 30.
|
| Second time, the spacing wasnt even but there were at least 60 of
| them till the show finished.
|
| Of course real number could be much higher since I noticed them
| ranfomly when looking up. Their line was perfectly aligned and
| they were going _fast_ (probably close to Earth).
|
| I guess this is how satellite launches look these days, but never
| saw more than 1 satellite at the same time in the same trajectory
| on the sky, and then this. Very futuristic experience.
| lolc wrote:
| Yes those must have been Starlink's. I was in awe the first
| time I saw that string of lights. And if you wait a bit, they
| come around again! They are in a low orbit and very fast
| relative to earth because of that.
| _Microft wrote:
| According to its Wikipedia entry, McMurdo Station had a 20Mbit/s
| satellite link so far.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station#Communications
| wcfields wrote:
| I had a buddy [1] that worked in the kitchen at Amundsen-Scott
| South Pole Station for a few seasons in 2012-2014. From what he
| told me: The internet works at certain times of the day at
| different bandwidths depending on the satellite. I think at
| that time there was 3 in orbit, and one of them was a retired
| Navy sat that had like dial-up speed.
|
| Also everything that goes to the station stays there so the
| vinyl collection is amazing, and they have a huge Betamax / VHS
| library and most importantly they have /The Thing/ on Betamax.
|
| [1]
| https://www.portlandmercury.com/Theater/2012/07/26/6564600/m...
|
| Edit: Here's the satellite schedule for this week,
| https://www.usap.gov/technology/documents/SPSAT%2020220915.p...
| and you can sign up for a listserv of updates here:
| https://www.usap.gov/technology/1935/
|
| These are the available birds in orbit for Antarctica:
|
| Broadband: South Pole TDRSS Relay (SPTR) Satellite
|
| Broadband: Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS)
|
| Broadband: Skynet Satellite Communications System
|
| Narrowband: Iridium Multi-Channel System (IMCS)
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I wonder exactly how many copies/versions/editions of The
| Thing they have.
| chiph wrote:
| Shemya Air Force Base (now Eareckson Air Station) in the
| Aleutian Islands had a policy that weight limits were waived
| for entertainment media. So you weren't going to be charged
| any penalties for bringing in movies, comics, CDs, or books
| because they increased the quality of life of such an
| isolated base (you were expected to share).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eareckson_Air_Station
| dtgriscom wrote:
| Oh, my. Watching "The Thing" in an Antarctic station would be
| insomnia fodder.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| > Also everything that goes to the station stays there
|
| What's the reasoning behind that? Presumably people bring
| back clothes and other personal affects right?
| ctdonath wrote:
| Most things are probably cheaper to replace than to bring
| back from the most remote area on Earth, and far cheaper to
| leave for someone else to use than make them bring their
| own. If unwanted, it's trash - too expensive to move when
| there's presumably an acceptable landfill right there (may
| sound environmentally unfriendly, but hauling trash back is
| likely worse).
| mlindner wrote:
| If I remember right they're actually required to ship all
| trash back. There are no trash landfills in Antarctica.
| retrac wrote:
| Personal effects must be like 1% (approximately) of what
| they ship in, by weight. Consider things like the
| consumables and construction equipment.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Given the cost of getting things there, it's probably
| polite to leave things like movies that you could easily
| replace back home, so others have them to watch.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I'd imagine the latency and per-installation cost is quite
| high.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Pings would be bad compared to fiber/cable from your location
| to somewhere close to you. Pings are potentially _better_
| than fiber /cable would be to locations far away from you,
| depending on the routing. Going up to LEO and then lasering
| around gets you faster signal propagation out of the
| atmosphere.
| ortusdux wrote:
| It looks like it operates at 35,000 km and relays the signal
| between the base and Australia. The ping time seems to
| average a hair under 250ms.
|
| https://www.satellite-
| calculations.com/Satellite/170HourList...
|
| http://bhs.smokeping.ovh.net/smokeping?target=APAC.AS7474-1
|
| Starlink satellites are mostly in the 550km elevation range.
| Average pings seem to be in the 50ms range, but this would be
| single satellite performance. This should drop as more units
| are brought online and increase capacity. Also, the laser
| interconnects are theoretically faster than terrestrial
| fiber, so there are expected to be many long-hauls where
| starlink will be the fastest option.
|
| https://www.speedcheck.org/starlink-performance-2021/
| iso1631 wrote:
| > It looks like it operates at 35,000 km and relays the
| signal between the base and Australia. The ping time seems
| to average a hair under 250ms.
|
| That would be impressive, as that would be 140,000km in
| 250ms, or about twice the speed of light
|
| Most satellite IP I use starts at about 650ms
| ortusdux wrote:
| Yeah that number seemed low, should have done the math.
| Going by the IPs, the link I posted is the delay between
| Quebec and the New South Wales ground station that the
| satellite links to. So it sounds like McMurdo to Quebec
| would be a 1 second delay on a good day.
| thelittleone wrote:
| The Thing now has Internet.
| hollander wrote:
| How about providing free internet to China and Russia, to give
| the people there proper information without government oversight?
| mlindner wrote:
| They can't without breaking international law.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Satellite terminals can become targets as soon as they turn on
| their uplink transmitter (and possibly even in receive-only
| mode unless their IF oscillator is perfectly shielded, which it
| probably isn't). This is why Musk tweeted to Ukrainian users
| "Turn on Starlink only when needed and place antenna as far
| away from people as possible." [0]
|
| [0] https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-is-using-elon-musks-
| starlink-f...
| wmf wrote:
| How about getting Tesla banned from China and possibly starting
| an orbital war that triggers the Kessler syndrome?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Nobody is going to disclose & use anti-satellite technology
| over internet censorship. Hell, China isn't even aiming for
| bulletproof _terrestrial_ censorship - they are happy with
| "good enough".
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _Nobody is going to disclose & use anti-satellite
| technology over internet censorship._
|
| This constellation is plausibly if not probably duel-use
| technology. You can bet that China is planning ways to
| disable it if war breaks out.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| _If_ war breaks out is the key. They 'd rather keep their
| ability to destroy it under wraps until it becomes a
| matter of national security. Disclosing it or using it
| prematurely over a benign issue such as internet
| censorship would be stupid.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| In the unlikely event that SpaceX tries to enter the
| Chinese market illegally, I wouldn't put it past China to
| swat one of Starlink's satellites using a conventional
| anti-satellite weapon (one of the sort they have already
| revealed), just to make a statement. But I think SpaceX
| won't do this anyway; they'll continue to comply with
| local/national laws during peacetime. It's not in their
| interest to stir the pot and cause diplomatic trouble.
|
| But more to your point I agree; they won't try to destroy
| the constellation itself over something as petty as a few
| people using Starlink to circumvent their 'Great
| Firewall'. People sufficiently motivated to get around
| the firewall already can, without the need for Starlink.
| The CCP doesn't seem to care about it; the firewall
| doesn't need to be perfectly airtight to control the
| population, it only needs to be 'good enough'. And they
| wouldn't want to expose any new anti-satellite weapons
| they have, particularly soft-kill weapons that might be
| addressed after discovery with a software patch.
| tenpies wrote:
| Also, the backbone of Tesla's production rests on the factory
| in Shanghai.
| espadrine wrote:
| What would be banned are the dishes. China doesn't need to
| send a missile to LEO (which would be unnecessarily costly
| for them).
| gpm wrote:
| China has previously demonstrated anti-satellite weapons
| multiple times _just to demonstrate they have them_ (and
| maybe make sure they work), I doubt they 'd be that worried
| about the cost to demonstrate that they mean it and are
| willing to use them.
| wcoenen wrote:
| Russia has done the same demonstration last year [1]. And
| yet they have not destroyed starlink, even though SpaceX
| donated many dishes to Ukraine[2].
|
| So there still seems to be some restraint around the
| concept of shooting down foreign satellites. I guess it's
| a "mutual assured destruction" type situation: once you
| shoot down a satellite, you'd better be prepared to lose
| your own.
|
| [1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_188780.htm
|
| [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/22/elon-musk-spacex-
| thousands-o...
| true_religion wrote:
| Ukraine isn't Russian territory even though Russia would
| like to believe differently.
|
| On the other hand, providing free media merely to subvert
| the people of main land China could be seen as a company
| over stepping it's bounds by far.
|
| I will bet China would sanction anyone who dealt with
| Starlink.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| China wouldn't need anti-satellite weapons to punish Elon
| Musk, since he has business interests in China. Hence "ban
| Teslas".
| thrwycct123 wrote:
| [deleted]
| eagerpace wrote:
| Valid comments here but with the very recent developments on
| satellite connections direct to mobile phones, how long until
| you don't need a giant satellite? It may be sooner than we
| think. Certainly there are other enforcement mechanisms but the
| trend towards the internet becoming a ubiquitous utility is
| still making a lot of progress and this is the next paradigm
| shift.
| fasthandle wrote:
| Indeed. Without veering of into another discussion, other
| enforcement includes apps and phone monitoring. This isn't
| limited to other apps on a phone but firmware, input methods,
| even simply switching IPs.
|
| As well as VPNs existing, international sim cards also
| 'bypass' internet filtering. Absolute restriction of the
| internet is not the goal. The goal is to not allow anything
| approaching a critical mass to do so, especially less
| technically literate who would not seek out VPNs etc unless
| they were marketed to or directly facilitated. The next is to
| all but remove the browser, email is truly dead having never
| been a big thing socially, with a domestic app orientated
| landscape; mobile penetration is far beyond lap/desktop.
|
| This doesn't make it better, but it is how it is.
| fasthandle wrote:
| It's far more straightforward to use a VPN. And as much as a
| VPN might or might not stick out depending on it and how it's
| used, procuring and using a Starling dish would far more.
|
| Incidentally, HN is blocked in China. Am using a VPN.
| bgun wrote:
| I would make a joke about equating "free internet" with "proper
| information" but in 2022 that joke writes itself. And let's not
| get started on the "without government oversight" part of your
| comment.
| tempie_deleteme wrote:
| what about providing 'proper' information without corporate
| oversight to people in the USA?
| dylan604 wrote:
| I mean, they kind of are, right? If the Chinese and Russian
| people came up with their own gear to receive/send compatible
| signals with the signal, then they could use it. Of course,
| authorized accounts would probably be problematic. Getting
| Starlink branded gear to use will also be hard in those
| countries.
| wmf wrote:
| No, they could not use it. I'm pretty sure the satellites
| turn off their transmitters and receivers when passing over
| unlicensed countries (if for no other reason than to save
| power).
| _joel wrote:
| They definitely turn off when passing over areas where
| there are radio telescopes, which was a bigger problem to
| astronomers than light reflections
| dylan604 wrote:
| that's just a software update though if Starlink so chooses
| to do so. they cost like $0.50 a piece, so if Putin wants
| to spend money effort to take a couple out to prove
| whatever point, then it costs them much much more than it
| does starlink. and at the rate they are getting launched,
| it won't be a very long lasting worthless accomplishment
| _joel wrote:
| They make a loss on the terminals.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I'm not worried about Starlink's bottom line. I'm just
| guessing that China would want Chinese hardware. Not sure
| what type of export restrictions this type of hardware
| would have applied to it related to these 2 countries.
|
| I was just implying that I'm guessing getting actual
| Starlink hardware through legit channels is probably not
| something that will be available.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Um, encryption?
|
| What's the end-to-end level of starlink vis-a-vis encryption?
| I have to imagine it's pretty good.
| dylan604 wrote:
| In Soviet Russia, encryption breaks you!
|
| I'm sure the backdoor master key "everyone" is pushing for
| would find a practical use in this situation
| dageshi wrote:
| Practical reasons?
|
| The government would restrict or ban import or sale of the
| hardware. They'd make them illegal and use possession of one as
| a reason to throw the owner in jail.
| unity1001 wrote:
| Yeah. Because there is 'proper' information without government
| oversight in the West.
|
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10613795/Joe-Biden-...
| cududa wrote:
| You know both Russia and China are perfectly capable of
| targeting and destroying satellites, yes?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They'll find it easier, both technologically and
| diplomatically, to target and destroy Starlink _receivers_
| (and their owners) within their borders.
| closewith wrote:
| Neither could destroy SpaceX satellites as fast as they can
| be launched. No State can.
|
| The issue would be whether they could cause enough damage to
| make the orbital plane (temporarily) unusable.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| The Starlink orbit is low enough that it would only be
| unusable for a year or so I'd imagine. Small debris will
| drop out quite fast.
| 42e6e8c8-f7b8-4 wrote:
| I think a laser mounted on one of their satellites could
| get the job done. Their militaries may even have that
| already.
| FpUser wrote:
| Are those protected from EMP that can kill scores at once?
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| The point of Starship is to launch hundreds at once,
| several times a week if it goes as planned (that's a few
| years away.) Forget Mars colonization, the only practical
| use for such a booster is to fight a war in LEO.
| closewith wrote:
| There's currently more than 3,000 satellites in the
| constellation. Killing scores or even hundreds isn't
| enough. The only known EMP weapons that could really
| impact the constellation is nuclear, and at that point,
| knocking out Starlink is the least of our worries.
| gpm wrote:
| They have directed energy weapons that could probably
| destroy individual satellites one at a time faster than
| they could be launched.
| closewith wrote:
| Who does? I think there's a [citation needed] for this
| claim.
| gpm wrote:
| China does.
|
| The probably is there for a reason though, the exact
| extent of their capabilities is unclear.
|
| Here's a citation:
| https://thediplomat.com/2022/06/chinas-directed-energy-
| weapo...
| closewith wrote:
| That's rumour, not a citation. Maybe I'm wrong and
| directed energy weapons can destroy thousands of
| satellites in LEO, but it's never been demonstrated by
| any nation.
| gpm wrote:
| It's a citation that they have them, which is all I
| claimed definitively. If I could cite the part of the
| statement after "probably", there wouldn't be a
| "probably" there.
|
| I would not call it rumors. If you'd like a more
| authoritative citation, here is a DIA (Defense
| Intelligence Agency, i.e. US military) report _cited in
| the article I cited above_ : https://www.dia.mil/Portals/
| 110/Documents/News/Military_Powe...
| jcampbell1 wrote:
| Go read page 24. It doesn't say what you are claiming.
| gpm wrote:
| Page 24 definitely doesn't, it's about Russia. Page 17 on
| the other hand
|
| > During the past two decades, Chinese defense research
| has proposed the development of several reversible and
| nonreversible counterspace DEWs for reversible dazzling
| of electro-optical sensors and even potentially
| destroying satellite components. China has multiple
| ground-based laser weapons of varying power levels to
| disrupt, degrade, or damage satellites that include a
| current limited capability to employ laser systems
| against satellite sensors. By the mid- to late-2020s,
| China may field higher power systems that extend the
| threat to the structures of nonoptical satellites.
|
| The discussion of current capabilities is primarily about
| optical satellites (though it can be read to include
| other components), but it probably applies to giant
| sensitive phased array antennas too.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| China, I'm not so worried about. At this point though, Putin
| doesn't have a lot to lose other than his head.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _You know both Russia and China are perfectly capable of
| targeting and destroying satellites, yes?_
|
| This would be an act of war and open their birds to
| retaliatory strikes. Tracking down the receivers and levying
| draconian punishments on those caught would do the trick.
| Moreover, from the example of Chinese students abroad, it's
| unclear access to information would do much.
| ctdonath wrote:
| A few, yes.
|
| Not by the thousands, short of taking ALL satellites out.
| ElectricalUnion wrote:
| > Not by the thousands, short of taking ALL satellites out.
|
| Kessler syndrome takes care of them all once you generate
| enough space junk.
| pphysch wrote:
| You think the USG that funded SpaceX/Starlink isn't going to
| have control over it...?
|
| While Starlink was marketed as a boon to rural democratic
| internet access, those promises have been walked back and its
| pretty clear that it the limited bandwidth is primarily
| intended to increase the Pentagon/ICs communications
| capabilities in the field, much like the Internet itself.
|
| The USG did not fund a swarm of satellites so that American
| (nor Russian, nor Chinese) farmers can watch Netflix.
| wmf wrote:
| Why wouldn't the Pentagon want to blanket China with US
| propaganda?
| pphysch wrote:
| Sure, but how do you propose to "blanket" China with
| Starlink modems?
| wmf wrote:
| I'm sure there are plenty of ingenious smugglers in
| China.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Most of the things they smuggle probably aren't intended
| to go on your roof where all the neighbors can see,
| though.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| You could, but what difference would it make? You'd only
| be able to get them to relatively few people, and the
| "Great Firewall" is already porous enough to let those
| with sufficient motivation slip through. China doesn't
| care about that; so long as their firewall still works
| for _most_ people then it still works for population
| control.
| bparsons wrote:
| There are much easier, and more discrete ways for users to
| bypass content filters than installing a giant, radiation
| emitting antennae on your roof.
| dbrueck wrote:
| Hey, if that's a cause you believe in, how about you start a
| non-profit to do it? You could really help some people.
| s_dev wrote:
| Because you can't give free internet to China or Russia to give
| people proper information without government oversight. It's
| not going to happen without the co-operation of these
| governments who will actively prevent you from doing that.
| That's basically why.
|
| That's not even mentioning the sanctions on Western technology
| entering Russia at the moment.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-14 23:02 UTC)