5 ms·

Satellite internet has existed for decades. Why is spacex the only way to provide high speed internet?

ceejayoz 7y ago
Satellite internet has indeed existed for decades, but via small numbers of geostationary satellites (Iridium only has 76 active satellites; Starlink launches about that many in every launch). That means severely constrained bandwidth, and high latency given the ~50,000 mile round trip the data has to take. It's also expensive to get a satellite out there. Low Earth orbit constellations have both lower latency (a couple hundred miles for data to travel instead of tens of thousands) and dramatically more (and cheaper) satellites = more bandwidth available.
- shaklee3 7y ago
  I'm well aware of the scale of starlink, but the speeds delivered by starlink won't be any faster than the existing GEO satellites at the time, not will it be cheaper. The OP talked about high speed internet, which, in most cases, the latency doesn't matter. Every cost estimate made by people in this industry say it will be much higher than geo to deliver a bit. If you have a source that says otherwise, please post it here.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Iridium currently offers a handful of megabits at best, doesn't it? Starlink's loading 20 Gbps on each satellite, and has successfully tested up to 610 megabits on a connection with a military plane. (https://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-to-start-offering-starlink-broadband-services-in-2020/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-to-start-offering-starlin...) > Every cost estimate made by people in this industry say it will be much higher than geo to deliver a bit. I'm not clear on whether you're referring to the ground station, the satellite constellation, or the cost of service here. That said, industry laughed at the idea of reusable rockets, and Blackberry thought Steve Jobs faked the iPhone pre-release. Industry estimates have been known to be badly wrong.
    - shaklee3 7y ago
      The ground system is what will make or break starlink. Every phased array antenna to date is at a price point that would put starlink selling exclusively to enterprise customers. This means consumers won't be able to get it unless you're in the 1% and living very remote. SpaceX will not realize 20Gbps per satellite in useable bandwidth. It's more like 5Gbps. http://www.mit.edu/~portillo/files/Comparison-LEO-IAC-2018-slides.pdf http://www.mit.edu/~portillo/files/Comparison-LEO-IAC-2018-s...
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        OneWeb claims to have cracked that, for a price point of $200-300. https://spacenews.com/wyler-claims-breakthrough-in-low-cost-antenna-for-oneweb-other-satellite-systems/ https://spacenews.com/wyler-claims-breakthrough-in-low-cost-... Even if it winds up being more expensive, you might see a neighborhood getting an antenna and distributing it to a group of houses. > SpaceX will not realize 20Gbps per satellite in useable bandwidth. It's more like 5Gbps. Based on guesses made prior to the first launch of production hardware, and speculative guesses on the number of SpaceX ground stations? Your slides are from 1 October 2018. The first batch of production hardware went up 24 May 2019.
        shaklee3 7y ago
        These are not guesses. These are calculations based on FCC filings with things like EIRP, PFD, etc, all included. SpaceX cannot simply transmit hotter than they filed for just because the filing is old. If anything, they're worse than those calculations since there's no ISL, and there were reported propulsion system problems. I personally can't see a neighborhood going in on satellite internet since they still need to transmit between each other, which would mean more equipment.
        portillo 7y ago
        I am the author of the slides/paper. The analysis was done with the best data available at the time, but I am interested in knowing what parameters you think are off / have changed substantially since then. I can say that the mass and volume of the satellites has changed quite a lot, and therefore the number of rocket launches required is pretty off in the paper. But I have not seen much info to invalidate the rest of results.
  - ericd 7y ago
    Can you point to some of those cost estimates? Latency absolutely matters for "high speed internet". Once you have reasonable bandwidth, that's the dominant factor in the user experience.
    - shaklee3 7y ago
      No, it's not. Streaming media is by far the largest consumer of bandwidth on the internet today. Latency doesn't matter at all for those. Please see this blog for approximate cost estimates, or the MIT study comparing leo constellations. http://tmfassociates.com/blog/category/operators/spacex/ http://tmfassociates.com/blog/category/operators/spacex/
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        Streaming uses lots of bandwidth, but it's not necessarily the majority of browsing activity. High latency is painful if you're doing things like browsing Reddit. The blog you're citing claimed Starlink was getting canceled a year ago, so I'm a bit skeptical of its use as an oracle. http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2018/09/18/420000-km-funding-secured/ http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2018/09/18/420000-km-funding-s... > Another hint that Starlink is going away was the statement that BFR is expected to consume the majority of engineering resources after the commercial crew development has been completed for NASA next year, despite Starlink supposedly costing more to develop than BFR ($10B+ compared to ~$5B) over the next 5 years.
        shaklee3 7y ago
        Browsing Reddit is perfectly fine on satellite internet. It's obviously not as fast as cable, but it's not the satellite internet of 10 years ago people judge it on. TMF is probably the most accurate consultant in this industry if you read the whole blog. He tends to be opinionated, which you won't find on places like spacenews. Either way, it's not productive arguing. It's like the Tesla versus anti-tesla camp, and that certainly won't be settled anytime soon.
    - portillo 7y ago

Satellite internet has indeed existed for decades, but via small numbers of geostationary satellites (Iridium only has 76 active satellites; Starlink launches about that many in every launch). That means severely constrained bandwidth, and high latency given the ~50,000 mile round trip the data has to take. It's also expensive to get a satellite out there. Low Earth orbit constellations have both lower latency (a couple hundred miles for data to travel instead of tens of thousands) and dramatically more (and cheaper) satellites = more bandwidth available.

shaklee3 7y ago
I'm well aware of the scale of starlink, but the speeds delivered by starlink won't be any faster than the existing GEO satellites at the time, not will it be cheaper. The OP talked about high speed internet, which, in most cases, the latency doesn't matter. Every cost estimate made by people in this industry say it will be much higher than geo to deliver a bit. If you have a source that says otherwise, please post it here.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Iridium currently offers a handful of megabits at best, doesn't it? Starlink's loading 20 Gbps on each satellite, and has successfully tested up to 610 megabits on a connection with a military plane. (https://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-to-start-offering-starlink-broadband-services-in-2020/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-to-start-offering-starlin...) > Every cost estimate made by people in this industry say it will be much higher than geo to deliver a bit. I'm not clear on whether you're referring to the ground station, the satellite constellation, or the cost of service here. That said, industry laughed at the idea of reusable rockets, and Blackberry thought Steve Jobs faked the iPhone pre-release. Industry estimates have been known to be badly wrong.
  - shaklee3 7y ago
    The ground system is what will make or break starlink. Every phased array antenna to date is at a price point that would put starlink selling exclusively to enterprise customers. This means consumers won't be able to get it unless you're in the 1% and living very remote. SpaceX will not realize 20Gbps per satellite in useable bandwidth. It's more like 5Gbps. http://www.mit.edu/~portillo/files/Comparison-LEO-IAC-2018-slides.pdf http://www.mit.edu/~portillo/files/Comparison-LEO-IAC-2018-s...
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      OneWeb claims to have cracked that, for a price point of $200-300. https://spacenews.com/wyler-claims-breakthrough-in-low-cost-antenna-for-oneweb-other-satellite-systems/ https://spacenews.com/wyler-claims-breakthrough-in-low-cost-... Even if it winds up being more expensive, you might see a neighborhood getting an antenna and distributing it to a group of houses. > SpaceX will not realize 20Gbps per satellite in useable bandwidth. It's more like 5Gbps. Based on guesses made prior to the first launch of production hardware, and speculative guesses on the number of SpaceX ground stations? Your slides are from 1 October 2018. The first batch of production hardware went up 24 May 2019.
      - shaklee3 7y ago
        These are not guesses. These are calculations based on FCC filings with things like EIRP, PFD, etc, all included. SpaceX cannot simply transmit hotter than they filed for just because the filing is old. If anything, they're worse than those calculations since there's no ISL, and there were reported propulsion system problems. I personally can't see a neighborhood going in on satellite internet since they still need to transmit between each other, which would mean more equipment.
      - portillo 7y ago
        I am the author of the slides/paper. The analysis was done with the best data available at the time, but I am interested in knowing what parameters you think are off / have changed substantially since then. I can say that the mass and volume of the satellites has changed quite a lot, and therefore the number of rocket launches required is pretty off in the paper. But I have not seen much info to invalidate the rest of results.
- ericd 7y ago
  Can you point to some of those cost estimates? Latency absolutely matters for "high speed internet". Once you have reasonable bandwidth, that's the dominant factor in the user experience.
  - shaklee3 7y ago
    No, it's not. Streaming media is by far the largest consumer of bandwidth on the internet today. Latency doesn't matter at all for those. Please see this blog for approximate cost estimates, or the MIT study comparing leo constellations. http://tmfassociates.com/blog/category/operators/spacex/ http://tmfassociates.com/blog/category/operators/spacex/
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Streaming uses lots of bandwidth, but it's not necessarily the majority of browsing activity. High latency is painful if you're doing things like browsing Reddit. The blog you're citing claimed Starlink was getting canceled a year ago, so I'm a bit skeptical of its use as an oracle. http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2018/09/18/420000-km-funding-secured/ http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2018/09/18/420000-km-funding-s... > Another hint that Starlink is going away was the statement that BFR is expected to consume the majority of engineering resources after the commercial crew development has been completed for NASA next year, despite Starlink supposedly costing more to develop than BFR ($10B+ compared to ~$5B) over the next 5 years.
      - shaklee3 7y ago
        Browsing Reddit is perfectly fine on satellite internet. It's obviously not as fast as cable, but it's not the satellite internet of 10 years ago people judge it on. TMF is probably the most accurate consultant in this industry if you read the whole blog. He tends to be opinionated, which you won't find on places like spacenews. Either way, it's not productive arguing. It's like the Tesla versus anti-tesla camp, and that certainly won't be settled anytime soon.
  - portillo 7y ago