A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 17th 18, 05:49 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites

"SpaceX's plan to build a global, high-speed wireless internet network using
satellites has taken another step forward. The FCC approved the company's request
to deploy more than 7,000 very-low-Earth orbit satellites for its Starlink
network. It follows the regulator giving SpaceX the green light in March to launch
4,425 satellites.

When it's complete, Starlink will be comprised of almost 12,000 satellites that
will blanket the planet with a persistent internet connection. That should mean
people in rural areas or other locations where more traditional types of
connections are impractical can access a network with promised speeds of up to 1
Gbps."

See:

https://www.engadget.com/2018/11/15/...et-satellites/



That's a lot of satellites!
Ads
  #2  
Old November 17th 18, 03:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,786
Default SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites

In article ,
says...

"SpaceX's plan to build a global, high-speed wireless internet network using
satellites has taken another step forward. The FCC approved the company's request
to deploy more than 7,000 very-low-Earth orbit satellites for its Starlink
network. It follows the regulator giving SpaceX the green light in March to launch
4,425 satellites.

When it's complete, Starlink will be comprised of almost 12,000 satellites that
will blanket the planet with a persistent internet connection. That should mean
people in rural areas or other locations where more traditional types of
connections are impractical can access a network with promised speeds of up to 1
Gbps."

See:

https://www.engadget.com/2018/11/15/...et-satellites/



That's a lot of satellites!


That's why they need to incorporate as much reuse as possible into
Falcon. Still working on fairing recovery.

Latency with this network is actually going to be pretty low. The hop
to LEO and back introduces far less latency than the hop to
geosynchronous orbit and back.

If they come up with an Internet service with 1/10th the speed and an
equal price to what I have now, I'd still switch just to stick it to
Spectrum. I'm paying close to $70 a month for 200Mbps down, which is
way faster than I need. But they don't offer a slower service for a
cheaper price.

Ditched their cable TV sometime back (their cheapest DVR was on 10 year
old "boxes" that were slow as snot). Sine then, I have been saving a
boat load of money. We've been using Sony PS Vue for streaming TV (with
cloud DVR) and while it glitches from time to time on the PS4, it's so
much cheaper I'll put up with that minor inconvenience. We can also
watch it on all of our Chromecasts with the PS Vue app on our smart
phones. Sling, YouTube TV, and others offer comparable streaming
services.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #3  
Old November 18th 18, 12:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,786
Default SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

"SpaceX's plan to build a global, high-speed wireless internet network using
satellites has taken another step forward. The FCC approved the company's request
to deploy more than 7,000 very-low-Earth orbit satellites for its Starlink
network. It follows the regulator giving SpaceX the green light in March to launch
4,425 satellites.

When it's complete, Starlink will be comprised of almost 12,000 satellites that
will blanket the planet with a persistent internet connection. That should mean
people in rural areas or other locations where more traditional types of
connections are impractical can access a network with promised speeds of up to 1
Gbps."

See:

https://www.engadget.com/2018/11/15/...et-satellites/



That's a lot of satellites!


That's why they need to incorporate as much reuse as possible into
Falcon. Still working on fairing recovery.


Update on Twitter from Elon today. SpaceX will not make the upper stage
of Falcon reusable. Concentrating on BFR/BFS.

Speaking of BFR/BFS, apparently they've iterated the design again. No
details as of yet, of course. It will be interesting to see if the
upper stage test next year incorporates these latest changes (whatever
they are).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #4  
Old November 18th 18, 07:20 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Rocket Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites

People in the artic and rural regions will be extremely pleased with this
development. Many of them can't get decent internet at the moment.

wrote in message
...
"SpaceX's plan to build a global, high-speed wireless internet network
using
satellites has taken another step forward. The FCC approved the company's
request
to deploy more than 7,000 very-low-Earth orbit satellites for its Starlink
network. It follows the regulator giving SpaceX the green light in March
to launch
4,425 satellites.

When it's complete, Starlink will be comprised of almost 12,000 satellites
that
will blanket the planet with a persistent internet connection. That should
mean
people in rural areas or other locations where more traditional types of
connections are impractical can access a network with promised speeds of
up to 1
Gbps."

See:

https://www.engadget.com/2018/11/15/...et-satellites/



That's a lot of satellites!



  #5  
Old November 18th 18, 05:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,786
Default SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites

In article ,
says...

On 2018-11-17 18:16, Jeff Findley wrote:

Update on Twitter from Elon today. SpaceX will not make the upper stage
of Falcon reusable. Concentrating on BFR/BFS.



Is there expectation that the thousands of satellites for that LEO
constellation will be launched by Falcon 9 or via BFR ?


Obviously Falcon 9 to start with since the FCC gave them a deadline for
having so many satellites launched. Possibly Falcon Heavy, but I'm
guessing these launches will be volume limited, not mass limited, so
Heavy wouldn't make any sense.

If SpaceX doesn't get the minimum number of satellites required by the
FCC up in time, they lose their license for the frequency bandwidth
allocated to them, which would be a "bad thing". The FCC doesn't want
companies buying up bandwidth and doing nothing with it. That would be
bad for consumers.

Obviously BFR would be cheaper in the long run since it will be fully
reusable, so once that's up and running they'll surely prefer to use
BFR.

While satellite operator wannabes tout their constantion as ultra fast,
you will note that they always omit one important metric: how much
uplink capacity will exist for each region served to connect the
satellite to the Internet. It's one thing to have 1gbps capacity
between a home and the satellite, but how many homes will connect to a
series of satellites at 1gnps and how many hopes to that satellite that
has the downloak to the earth station and how much capacity will that
one have ?


I'm pretty sure if you read the FCC documents related to Starlink, you'd
fine information like this. As for Starlink ground stations, they won't
be anything like traditional ground stations. If you read a few
articles on Starlink, you'd know this.

Satelite operators have over the years made many many promises, and
newer generation of satellites are faster, but in the end, by the time
service is available in retail, it is aways many generatiosn behind what
is expected for Internet connectivity.


Early Starlink satellites will have a 3 year lifetime, so they can
easily be replaced with upgraded satellites every 3 years. This
dovetails nicely with BFR. Essentially SpaceX will be launching
satellites every single year to keep the Starlink constellation up to
date.

Due to the high level of vertical integration of both satellites and
launch, SpaceX will be in a position to remain profitable while
undercutting the pricing of service provided by other large satellite
constellations.

Have fund with your 1gbps speed on satellite when you monthly usage is
limited to 5 GB.


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you just pulled that
"information" out of your ass. How can you know what the terms and
conditions for Starlink will be? I don't believe that anyone knows this
information yet because SpaceX isn't selling the service yet because
they don't have a satellite network in place yet.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #6  
Old November 18th 18, 11:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,844
Default SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites

JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 18 Nov 2018
15:53:56 -0500:

On 2018-11-18 11:42, Jeff Findley wrote:

Obviously BFR would be cheaper in the long run since it will be fully
reusable, so once that's up and running they'll surely prefer to use
BFR.


I know the concept of BFR/BFS is meant to be fully reusable. But in a
context of launcing satellites, doesn't BFR act as a Falcon 9 stage 1
and there is still some need for some stage 2 to move stallites into
position and jettison each at the right time ?


No.



I'm pretty sure if you read the FCC documents related to Starlink, you'd
fine information like this. As for Starlink ground stations, they won't
be anything like traditional ground stations. If you read a few
articles on Starlink, you'd know this.


The concept of satellites talking to each other to reach one with a
downlink is not new.


In other words, you can't be bothered to even marginally educate
yourself so that you can manage a semi-intelligent conversation on the
subject.


It expands on the spot beam principle by spreading beams over many
satellites that then "find" the one satellite nearest to them that
currently flying over a ground station. So the capacity from many
satellites is funneleed onto the nearest one with uplink connection to a
ground station, putting even more demand on capacity for that link which
is still limited by the allocated spectrum to that satellite operator.


Space side network is lasers, not RF. Only ground station
communication uses radio.


Where there is improvement is if someone in Resolute Bay sends data to
someone in Iqaluit. Currently data goes to geo satellite then back down
to Toronto ground station (Xplornet) then back up to same satellite and
back down to Iqaluit's dish.

With the new model, it become theoretically possible for the packet to
go up to one satellite, transit to whateere satellite is over ioqaluit
and back down, eliminating the big long hops or the use of a ground station.


No, because individual users won't have the capability to receive and
transmit on Starlink ground frequencies.


But when you look at the structure of the Internet, most of the traffic
goes to very centralised places (an city that has Netflix, Google,
Amazon, Level3, Akamai etc servers). Home to home traffic is light and
couwl dconsist of gaming and Skype stuff.


You seem very confused about both the architecture of the internet and
the intended architecture of Starlink.



Early Starlink satellites will have a 3 year lifetime, so they can
easily be replaced with upgraded satellites every 3 years.


Satellites aren't the problem. Ground stations are.


Why do you think that? Ground stations are just ordinary ISP server
farms with some antennae.


This
dovetails nicely with BFR. Essentially SpaceX will be launching
satellites every single year to keep the Starlink constellation up to
date.


Yet, people believe the claims that such services will be far more
affordable than current services.


Because BFR/BFS will be a fully reusable system it will be
preposterously cheap compared to any system (including Falcon 9) in
use today.




Have fund with your 1gbps speed on satellite when you monthly usage is
limited to 5 GB.


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you just pulled that
"information" out of your ass.


https://www.xplornet.com/shop/our-internet-packages/ Postal ode X0A0R0
(Pangnirtung) (the "0" are all zeros in postal code)

The satellite services in the USA are not as bad. But Xplornet has been
promising amazing thinsg with its "4G" satellites when they launched and
nothing much changed with their rates and monthly limits when the new
satellites were put int production.

So sorry to rain on your parade, but don't expect Starlink to be that
different. Someone has to pay for lanching these thousands of satellites.


Thank you for demonstrating that you did indeed pull that number out
of your ass. Comparing Starlink to an existing service is rather like
claiming that mere hours in transport between cities at prices much
cheaper than buying a Conestoga wagon is impossible.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #7  
Old November 19th 18, 03:12 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,786
Default SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites

In article ,
says...

On 2018-11-18 11:42, Jeff Findley wrote:

Obviously BFR would be cheaper in the long run since it will be fully
reusable, so once that's up and running they'll surely prefer to use
BFR.


I know the concept of BFR/BFS is meant to be fully reusable. But in a
context of launcing satellites, doesn't BFR act as a Falcon 9 stage 1
and there is still some need for some stage 2 to move stallites into
position and jettison each at the right time ?


Cargo BFS. BFR is sometimes used to refer to the entire two stage
vehicle.

This
dovetails nicely with BFR. Essentially SpaceX will be launching
satellites every single year to keep the Starlink constellation up to
date.


Yet, people believe the claims that such services will be far more
affordable than current services.


Because the satellites will essentially be mass produced. The ground
hardware will be mass produced (a phased array antenna with associated
hardware that essentially acts like a high powered cable modem).

Have fund with your 1gbps speed on satellite when you monthly usage is
limited to 5 GB.


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you just pulled that
"information" out of your ass.


https://www.xplornet.com/shop/our-internet-packages/ Postal ode X0A0R0
(Pangnirtung) (the "0" are all zeros in postal code)

The satellite services in the USA are not as bad. But Xplornet has been
promising amazing thinsg with its "4G" satellites when they launched and
nothing much changed with their rates and monthly limits when the new
satellites were put int production.


That company isn't SpaceX, is it? Again, how do you pretend to know
what Starlink's pricing will be like.

So sorry to rain on your parade, but don't expect Starlink to be that
different. Someone has to pay for lanching these thousands of satellites.


Things that are different, just aren't the same.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #8  
Old November 19th 18, 03:38 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,786
Default SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites

In article ,
says...

On 2018-11-18 17:07, Fred J. McCall wrote:

No.


So, I take it the satellites will all be attached to BFR which will
progressively release each one, fire engines, release another etc etc
and then BFR returns to earth, complete with the array that
held/launched the satellites ?

I there is no disposable sateg 2, how else could this be done? please
explain.


BFR is a fully reusable TSTO. The second stage is often called BFS.
The cargo version of BFS will have a large payload bay . Once in orbit,
the payload bay door(s) will open and the satellites will be released in
sequence just like Iridium satellites are released from a Falcon 9 upper
stage. Just like Iridium, the satellites will take care of placing
themselves along the desired final orbit since they each have their own
propulsion system.

You seem very confused about both the architecture of the internet

and
the intended architecture of Starlink.


Your attacks are expected sicne that is all you do.

Vurt if YOU understood how the Internet current works and where the
largest generator of traffics are setup and where you'd understand that
you can't put a groiund station anywhere. Piutting a ground station in
Ialquit to serve satellites over the eastern arctic won't do you any
good because it has no ground links to the Internet.


I don't understand your point. Since it's a global satellite network,
you put the ground terminals exactly where they're needed. Clearly the
end users of Starlink will have ground terminals. The ground terminals
that connect to the existing Internet infrastructure will be placed
where they are needed. These aren't really huge "ground stations".

They did recently string fibre ovr the Mackenzie Valley to Inuvik in the
western arctic. And they are already building new satellite groun
stations near Inuvik's airport to get a "view" of satellites whole
current position doesn't give contac with other north american ground
stations.


Starlink is a network of LEO satellites pretty much all around the
globe. End users will mount a pizza box phased array antenna outside
and point it pretty much straight up at the sky. No need to point
exactly at a satellite, because they're all moving anyway! That's the
point of the phased array antennas on both the satellites and the ground
terminals.

Why do you think that? Ground stations are just ordinary ISP server
farms with some antennae.


See above. If you limit ground stations to places that have existing
peering/local presence of the large information providers, then those
ground stations will end up having to carry far more capacity then the
allocated spectrum allows.


Again, this is a global LEO satellite network. SpaceX could put their
ground stations closest to where the major data sources are in order to
minimize latency and dependence on the existing Internet backbones. If
YouTube has a server farm in California, you can stick a "ground
station" there. Same goes for any major server.

Because BFR/BFS will be a fully reusable system it will be
preposterously cheap compared to any system (including Falcon 9) in
use today.


Cheaper than "extremely expensive" is still very expensive.


Again, you have no idea what Starlink's pricing will be.

But we do know what SpaceX's pricing for Falcon 9 is. It's far below
the global competition. And that price is set to make them money on
every launch. When they're launching their own satellites, they just
have to pay the actual cost of the launch, which is less.

Again, BFR/BFS will be even cheaper to operate due to its full
reusability. Starlink will get those launches at cost too. They'll be
far cheaper than launches for any other LEO network. That's the power
of vertical integration. No other LEO satellite network will have this
advantage (as far as I know).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #9  
Old November 19th 18, 09:43 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,844
Default SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites

Jeff Findley wrote on Sun, 18 Nov 2018
21:12:59 -0500:

In article ,
says...

On 2018-11-18 11:42, Jeff Findley wrote:

Obviously BFR would be cheaper in the long run since it will be fully
reusable, so once that's up and running they'll surely prefer to use
BFR.


I know the concept of BFR/BFS is meant to be fully reusable. But in a
context of launcing satellites, doesn't BFR act as a Falcon 9 stage 1
and there is still some need for some stage 2 to move stallites into
position and jettison each at the right time ?


Cargo BFS. BFR is sometimes used to refer to the entire two stage
vehicle.


Given reusability and the cargo capacity, BFR should cost around
$75/kg to LEO.

This
dovetails nicely with BFR. Essentially SpaceX will be launching
satellites every single year to keep the Starlink constellation up to
date.


Yet, people believe the claims that such services will be far more
affordable than current services.


Because the satellites will essentially be mass produced. The ground
hardware will be mass produced (a phased array antenna with associated
hardware that essentially acts like a high powered cable modem).


Hughes (Explorenet leases satellite capacity from them) says it costs
around $500 million to build and launch a satellite to orbit. They're
launching on ULA Atlas V as a single payload, so just the launch costs
are well north of $100 MILLION. Meanwhile, launch costs for a
Starlink bird should be well south of $40 THOUSAND. Explorenet paid
$200 million to lease their current block of bandwidth on one
satellite. The second satellite presumably has similar costs.

Have fund with your 1gbps speed on satellite when you monthly usage is
limited to 5 GB.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you just pulled that
"information" out of your ass.


https://www.xplornet.com/shop/our-internet-packages/ Postal ode X0A0R0
(Pangnirtung) (the "0" are all zeros in postal code)

The satellite services in the USA are not as bad. But Xplornet has been
promising amazing thinsg with its "4G" satellites when they launched and
nothing much changed with their rates and monthly limits when the new
satellites were put int production.


That company isn't SpaceX, is it? Again, how do you pretend to know
what Starlink's pricing will be like.

So sorry to rain on your parade, but don't expect Starlink to be that
different. Someone has to pay for lanching these thousands of satellites.


Things that are different, just aren't the same.


Yeah. Design and buildout of the Starlink constellation (7500
satellites) is expected to cost around $10 billion. That comes out to
around $1.33 million per bird, or less than 1% of what an Explorenet
satellite costs them (at $200 million). Bottom line is that
Explorenet paid $0.4 billion to get (apparently expensive and limited)
Canadian service in place. For around 25 times that cost, Starlink
will have worldwide service with much higher bandwidth.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #10  
Old November 19th 18, 12:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,786
Default SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites

In article ,
says...

On 2018-11-18 21:38, Jeff Findley wrote:

The cargo version of BFS will have a large payload bay .


ok, so there will be a cargo version. Wasn't aware of that. Had only
seen the draw2ings for the cruise shop with hundred+ passengers to Mars.


There are three BFS versions: crew, cargo, and tanker. Trips much
beyond LEO need refueling and that's best done with dedicated tankers
where the majority of the "payload" is actually propellant tanks used to
refuel other BFS vehicles. These three basic designs all share the same
mold lines, structure, engines, TPS, and etc. They're all the same
basic "type" just like a passenger 747 versus a cargo 747.

the payload bay door(s) will open and the satellites will be released in
sequence just like Iridium satellites are released from a Falcon 9 upper
stage.


So the payload bay will be fitted with the satellite release mechanism
specific to those stalellites, right? Sort of like the Shuttle payload
being fitted with multiple PAM launchers ?


That's not crystal clear at this time. They could stick with the EELV
style standards (just more than one at a time in the bay) enabling
payloads to be integrated just as they are today. Again, look at what
they do for Iridium launches. The Iridium satellite dispenser attaches
to the upper stage just like all other payloads (i.e. it bolts to the
standard payload interface).

Or they could come up with a dedicated BFS cargo design just for their
own Starlink satellites to maximize the number launched per flight
(again, vertical integration). The point is we don't know the details.
Likely SpaceX doesn't know either since they've got another major
iteration of BFR in the works.

SpaceX isn't afraid to change designs when needed.

I don't understand your point. Since it's a global satellite network,
you put the ground terminals exactly where they're needed.


In Canada, unlike the USA, the vast majority of the area where services
are needed do not have any fibre ANYWHERE near, so you can't place the
ground stations where they are needed and need to aggregate traffic to a
satteline that is over a ground station.

So to serve a town like Resolute Bay at 73 latitude, the satellite that
passes overhead may have to pass the signals down to another and then
another to reach one that is over a ground station. The thing is that
ground station will end up service a verty large area of northern Canada
and thus aggregate a lot fo traffic and this is where the uplink
capacity matters.


Are you forgetting this network will have 12,000 satellites? That's
where the capacity comes from. They've greatly increased the size of
the in space network since this was first proposed. There will be "a
few" more than one satellite overhead at a time.

Again, you have no idea what Starlink's pricing will be.


If you think it will be radically lower than existing services you are
mistaken. Especially since Musk has stated it needs to generate revenue
to find BFR/BFS, and once they realise how much gorund infrastructure
they will need to support users worldwide, you'll find the costs go way up.

The price of the launch is one thing. But if you have demand for X
capaxity, but your system only provides for half of that, then you price
service high and/or impose usage limits or lower speeds to limit demand
for capacity which you don't have. If you oversell the service (as
Xplornet does), then you get a terrible image and people hate you.


Starlink just has to price themselves enough below the existing
providers to steal their customers. In response to that, the existing
providers will need to lower their prices, as much as they can, in order
to retain as many customers as possible. If they lower their prices
below Starlink, then Starlink will need to cut their prices to remain
the lowest cost provider.

This is a supply and demand driven global free market. If you think
prices will remain high as more providers enter the market (as you said,
SpaceX isn't the only company trying to build a large constellation),
you're sadly mistaken.

reusability. Starlink will get those launches at cost too. They'll be
far cheaper than launches for any other LEO network.


Getting launches at cost doesn't matter. It's all book keeping. What
matters how how much will be oeration costs, groudn station costs and
how much revenues they will get. (and factor in need to lauhch X
satellites per year to replace falling ones in the longer term)


Launch cost is a portion of overall costs. Yes those other costs
matter. SpaceX is deliberately making their network out of numerous
satellites. If a few fail, so what? That's taken into account via
spares in orbit. Iridium already does this.

As for ground station costs, that's why SpaceX is looking to build many
ground stations around the planet. This isn't at all like owning a few
GEO comsats with very few dedicated (uplink) ground stations for each
comsat. This is a network with almost 12,000 satellites talking to
hundreds of ground stations located strategically around the planet to
provide service to millions of customers.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
...Iranian Citizens Deploy the Most Dangerous Weapon of all! Jonathan Policy 5 June 21st 09 08:18 PM
Psychos on the Internet, telesadists, how the Internet falsified our rights gb6726 Astronomy Misc 0 July 6th 07 10:29 PM
Solar Panel Array Deploy kwebster Space Station 0 June 12th 07 06:39 PM
New presidential directive calls for U.S. to deploy weapons in space Henry Spencer Policy 16 June 2nd 05 05:21 PM
Telesat and EMS Satellite Networks to deploy DVB-RCS hub using DVB-S2 on Anik F2 Jacques van Oene News 0 March 25th 05 07:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.