|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites
JF Mezei wrote on Mon, 19 Nov 2018
02:49:18 -0500: 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. You are frequently 'not aware' of things. Just how did you think that "cruise shop [sic]" got to Mars if there was no tanker version to refuel it in Earth orbit so that it could make the trip? Actually I'm not sure that's still current information, either. Original plan was for three versions; a 'passenger' version, a 'cargo' version, and a tanker version. One of the three went away. I thought they combined the 'passenger' and 'cargo' versions into a single more versatile vehicle. 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 ? Which part of "just like a Falcon 9 upper stage" is it that you're having trouble wrapping your head around? 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. Huh? With 7500 or so birds in orbit, a lot of them are going to be visible at once from any given point, even though they're only 350 miles or so up. 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. Yes, the 7500 orbiting satellites are nodes in a single large network. What's your point? These aren't really huge "ground stations". This issue isn't their size (although you want a huge antenna to paliate rain/snow fade effect on the uplink since that will affect a lot of users. Again, huh? 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. Again, it has to do with spectrum/bandwidth available for the uplink between one ground station and the staellite currently passing over it and how many end users end up being connected to that ground station. With 7500 satellites in the constellation, how many are visible from a given ground station? Nothing says you have to use the one directly overhead. Consider an extreme example of SpaceX having 1 antenna over Musk's home as the single ground station for the world. All satellites will be connected and data will flow from the internet to musk's home , on the uplink to a satellite and then relayed from satellite to satellite until i reacches the satelite over Gabon where it pushes the data down to the home of someone in Gabon. This all works and looks great. The problem is that that one uplink over Musk's home will be limited in capacity by how much spectrum the ITU/FCC will have given it and the capacity of the satellite passing over Musk's house at anty point in time. If you want to serve the world from 1 ground station, you will need many many terabits/second capacity on that uplink, and need all your satellites to be able to process all of the world's data demands since anyone satellite eventually becomes the one passing over Musk's home and acts as the main relay to the ground for all of Starlink's end users. Poppycock! What do you think the bandwidth of the internet backbone is? Hint: The biggest pipes are around 100 Gbs, over an order of magnitude smaller than your figure. Most of it is even smaller than that. So, it comes down to determining how many ground stations you can have and how many are needed in order to provide the complete system with uplink cxapacity that matches the demand from end users. The more ground stations you have, the more caopaciuty you have and the better the service end users will have. But the more ground statiosn you have, the costlier your system becomes. And then you start dealing with national regulators. Selling service to a Canadian will require the service abide by CRTC rules, notably net neutrality. But if the groudn station is in the USA where the Internet no longer exists as a telecom service, then the "information service" rules (or lack thereof() will apply. You still seem confused about how networks work. Same with a user in Taiwan who might end upo using a ground station located in China with all of the Chinese firewalls in place. An end user won't 'use a ground station' unless they're talking to a business local to that ground station. 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. While they haven't established how they're going to charge, they have said that by the mid-2020's they expect to have 40 million users generating $30 billion in revenue. That provides a guestimate of what the 'average' user will pay and it's just not all that high. 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. Costs and speeds are expected to be commensurate with current wired internet. 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) The satellites are good for around 5.5 years. It costs less than $40 thousand to launch a new one (plus the cost of hardware). I think you're handwaving problems into existence that don't exist. -- "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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 06:05 PM |