JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 21 Nov 2018
12:32:28 -0500:

On 2018-11-21 08:20, Jeff Findley wrote:

The video isn't a sales pitch, it's made by an expert in the field of
communications. So, you're drawing conclusions about how this will be
sold without actually knowing who SpaceX will be marketing this to.

The expert would be using examples that spaceX gave him, so it does
givce an indication of where SpaceX thinks there is market.


Bull****. Stop pulling things out of your ass. They're EXAMPLES,
which are typically simplified from how the system will actually be
used.


Depends how they do the routing algorithm. A smart software developer
knows that you don't have to run the routing algorithm for every single
packet of data because the satellites move in *very* predictable ways
over time

Since the east-west lasers are directional, it takes time to re-aim the
laser to point to a new satellite that has come into view. north-sour
links are stable, but re-routing to the north south link while you wait
for the lasers to point to new satellite will change latency, and once
contact with new satteelte has been established, a new chage in route
happens.


And they're aimed by arthritic dwarves, so it takes a LONG time to
reaim vice the few milliseconds that any sane system would take.


Also, fibre has far more capacity than a laser. Not only can fibre
support simulteneous wavelengths, but there are a lot of strands in a
trans-atlantic cable for instance

You're talking out of your ass again.

Please pray tell, explain how SpaceX lasers could match/exceed the
lasers used for fibre links. Do they use subspace and go faster thah light ?


Light in fiber is much slower than light in vacuum. It is, in point
of fact, almost a third slower. Now don't you feel stupid for getting
all snarky?


Pray tell how the magical SpaceX laser could provide the capacity that
is given by a cable of say 32 strands, each capable of 4 wavelengths of
100GBPS each.


Show me such a fiber. CABLE BUNDLES of fiber are capable of 100 Gbps
(which is much slower than 100GBPS).

The fact is that Starlink will likely be *faster* than fiber
connections. This means that trading companies will be willing to dump
money into this project so they can reap the benefits (this has been
mentioned in other articles on Starlink because those are your biggest
potential initial customers).

It really depends on how many hops between satellites are needed to go
from A to B. Suspect New York-London may not be competitive because of
adjacency to trans-atlantic cables. But Chicago or Los Angeles to London
might compete, assuming the frequecy route changes in the sky maintain
jitter to a minimum.


You need to stop going with what you 'suspect', because you are almost
inadvertently wrong.



High frequency traders will be beating down the doors of SpaceX to get
in on the ground floor of Starlink for the very reasons Krugman states
in his article above. And they'll have wads of cash in hand.

Until the first thunderstorm over their offices where traders lose
connection for a few minutes and lose millions of dollars.


Uh, RF works fine through thunderstorms. That's why the user
terminals use RF rather than lasers.


There are good reasons "serious" satellite applications want large
dishes. It's called "weather".


Wrong.


Yes, SpaceX needs to promote their plan and PR it to death with all
soprts of fancy promises. But just like BFR/BFS, expect those plans to
be quietly slaled back once the accountants starts to tell Musk the
grandiose plan won't pay for itself.


You're insane.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine