5 ms·

Not super surprised (because traditional media is bad at specialist topics--looks like they googled large conventional satellite makers and talked to a self-des

Not super surprised (because traditional media is bad at specialist topics--looks like they googled large conventional satellite makers and talked to a self-described expert, who unfortunately didn't provide a ton of context), but there was no mention of the obvious company/competitor that has demonstrated the technology in question: https://spacenews.com/ubiquitilink-has-raised-12-million-for-communications-constellation/ https://spacenews.com/ubiquitilink-has-raised-12-million-for... Ubiquitilink (now called just Lynk) demonstrated the ability to communicate with existing, unmodified cellphones from orbit (the prototype was a secondary payload on the Cygnus spacecraft, which had resupplied the International Space Station). This is a remarkable feat and puts the technology in a completely different camp than it was when large LEO constellations like Iridium were tried beforehand. Iridium failed to acquire enough customers before going bankrupt in part because they required an expensive and clunky handset. Being able to use existing GSM and LTE phones without bulky antennas (and in spite of the latency being beyond what GSM/LTE usually tolerates) is a breakthrough. https://www.spaceitbridge.com/cell-tower-in-the-sky-ubiquitilink-is-now-lynk-hiring.htm https://www.spaceitbridge.com/cell-tower-in-the-sky-ubiquiti... They plan to start with SMS texting (can use very cheap satellites and don't require very many of them) and then voice/data later on. (Plan is to partner with existing providers to allow global texting anywhere on the planet.) The second prototype is a satellite launched on a SpaceX Dragon to the International Space Station that will be assembled by astronauts: https://mobile.twitter.com/NexGenSpace/status/1155087893163118592 https://mobile.twitter.com/NexGenSpace/status/11550878931631... It's a complete gamechanger (possibly even bigger than SpaceX's Starlink). Doubtless Apple realizes this potential and wants their own in to this. It's a legitimate way for Apple to use their huge amount of cash to legitimately grow their revenue significantly. And Apple has the advantage that they can make modifications to the phones (or tablets or watches or notebooks, etc) themselves. Apple can also afford multi-billion-dollar investments that take many years to come to fruition, something Iridium (and Globalstar and others) couldn't at that time.

jandrese 7y ago
I'm not sure how much of a gamechanger it will be to only be able to send SMS, and probably at a fairly high price point. It's perhaps a big deal if you're a Yak farmer in remote Sibera and don't normally have any kind of coverage at all, but most people have some sort of cell coverage that provides at least SMS. The comment that the bulky handset killed Iridium is only part of the picture. The bigger issue is that terrestrial cell antennas went up faster than Motorola expected, and by the time the system was online its primary use case had already largely vanished, especially among the kind of people who could afford the extremely high fees for the service. In the end the market niche closed down to government people in extremely remote locations who don't already have some sort of satellite connection.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  They're not limited to SMS; that's just the minimum viable product. They can do voice and data as well with the same technology. It also should be a lot easier and cheaper for Lynk to deploy than it was for Iridium, since launch costs have gone down significantly (while reliability is higher) and they use extremely small, cheap satellites (at least initially). They are planning on providing a fill-in-the-gaps service and are partnering with existing terrestrial service providers... Providers, at least with the next-generation version, won't have to provide cell towers (in places where there isn't otherwise enough demand to justify the large installation and upkeep costs) purely for gaining complete coverage. This is the sort of thing Iridium was never capable of. It should be pointed out that Iridium (post-bankruptcy) became profitable and has recently finished launching their entire second-generation constellation (on Falcon 9). Their subscriber base continues to grow.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    I'm not so sure. One of the reasons cell phones work at all is that they are relatively close to the antenna. This service requires to antennas to be at least 100 miles away and doesn't have any provision to improve the gain on the client side. SMS may be roughly the limit of what they can provide in the available bandwidth. The inverse square law is a harsh mistress.
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      There's always the option of increased gain on the serving side as well (both transmitting and receiving). 5G and related technologies allow beam steering which may improve gain (and selectivity) on the client side, and it's possible Apple may be working this angle on their side for whatever they're working on. In sparsely populated areas where the service could be valuable, I think they can get away with a lot more (as far as frequency usage) than they could for mobile in dense areas. So I think it could indeed be useful.
      - portillo 7y ago
newscracker 7y ago
I don’t see this as a game changer. It may be revolutionary in terms of technological achievement, but what’s the “killer app” for this? SMS is ok, because it is already unreliable on traditional cellular networks and there’s no saying how long a message would take to reach. Voice and data seems to be a fantasy, especially if it has to scale. Latency and packet loss (presuming it’s all going to be IP based) would make this almost as good as existing satellite Internet services or somewhat better than them. What’s new here that would make it work significantly better than current technology for voice and data, and how are the limits of physics being tested or worked around? If Apple wants to launch satellites that can communicate with phones directly, I’d prefer that the work go into better maps and better real time navigation (though I’m not sure how the latter could be helped much with satellites). Apple users need this more than anything novel and fancy if Google’s lead on this needs to be narrowed.
- the_real_sparky 7y ago
  On-board global SMS would probably destroy a good chunk of the SPOT GPS beacon market. The only advantage GPS beacons/emergency locators might have at that point is battery life, and someone like Apple could probably take that part of the market too with a “low power tracking” mode that only fired up briefly every 10 minutes to transmit your current location.
- Multicomp 7y ago
  I am no expert, but having normal cell phone speeds available most of the time, then backing off to 'IP-over-SMS (IoTXT?)' speeds when off the cell phone network carries a lot of value for me, not just in search and rescue scenarios, but maritime use, use in the back 40, and so on. Sure, we won't be able to stream media, but having slow and steady wireless communications vs. no signal at all is like comparing a running, rusty 1985 Volvo station wagon to a 2021 Porche 911 GTS with no wheels: one will move you from place to place, albeit at a stately pace and in no style, the other is super cool, and at this exact second in time, is unfit for the purpose of transporting a body from place to place.
taneq 7y ago
> Ubiquitilink (now called just Lynk) demonstrated the ability to communicate with existing, unmodified cellphones from orbit I spent way too long picturing a Samsung Galaxy drifting out of the cargo bay of a launch vehicle before realising you meant a satellite in orbit could connect to a standard phone on the ground.
portillo 7y ago
> to a self-described expert, who unfortunately didn't provide a ton of context), Are you questioning the expertise of Tim Farrar? If that is the case, you couldn't be more wrong. Check his blog and you will see he has been doing this thing for more than 20 years... Also, lynk will never be able to provide enough bandwidth to deliver internet connectivity. It is envisioned to be used for short messages.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  If you're getting those latter two sentences from following his blog, you will understand why I said what I said. Lynk explicitly envisions the technology expanding beyond just text messages. They mention the speed over the LTE protocol of their satellite service is 180kbps, plenty for email, voice, streaming music, and some web browsing: http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1127710956 http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1127710956
_xerxes_ 7y ago
While from the articles Lynk is doing interesting and perhaps technically impressive work, I think they are going to struggle with competing with the deep pockets of the likes SpaceX, OneWeb, Blue Origin and now Apple and others. I see from the articles linked and their site that their business model is different, but I doubt they could sell enough service to cover the cost of launching and maintaining their own constellation. Their best hope (and plan) might be to get absorbed by one of the bigger players. It is hard to compete against a well-funded company that makes its own rockets and payloads and has access to hundreds of experienced engineers in their own and sister companies. I am not even that convinced that Lynk's idea would work from a technological point of view. A quick look at Wikipedia states that: "A low Earth orbit (LEO) is an Earth-centered orbit with an altitude of 2,000 km (1,200 mi) " I don't think you're getting a cell-signal to remain above the noise threshold/detectable level that far, especially under unfavorable atmospheric conditions. Yes, the satellite could have some impressive high-gain antenna, but the average cell phone is not going to transmit enough power to go more than 50 miles, let alone over a 1000. I'd genuinely love to see some data that contradicts me as I find the concept intriguing.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  They actually demonstrated the link. LEO goes down to 200-400km altitude. Their prototype was at 400km altitude. What makes their technology impressive is the ability to work beyond the usual ~20 mile limit without modifying user hardware. A good article: "For example, a standard cell phone connected to a terrestrial tower generally has a range limited to around 35 kilometers (21 miles) if the line-of-sight is not interrupted by hills, buildings, or foliage. The phone signal can travel further, but the reception range is artificially limited by the highly accurate time frames of the cell phone protocol. To get the phone to connect to a satellite flying 500 kilometers (310 miles) overhead, Lynk’s software at the satellite overcomes the built-in time-frame distance limit built into standard phone protocols." http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1127710956 http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1127710956

jandrese 7y ago

I'm not sure how much of a gamechanger it will be to only be able to send SMS, and probably at a fairly high price point. It's perhaps a big deal if you're a Yak farmer in remote Sibera and don't normally have any kind of coverage at all, but most people have some sort of cell coverage that provides at least SMS. The comment that the bulky handset killed Iridium is only part of the picture. The bigger issue is that terrestrial cell antennas went up faster than Motorola expected, and by the time the system was online its primary use case had already largely vanished, especially among the kind of people who could afford the extremely high fees for the service. In the end the market niche closed down to government people in extremely remote locations who don't already have some sort of satellite connection.

Robotbeat 7y ago
They're not limited to SMS; that's just the minimum viable product. They can do voice and data as well with the same technology. It also should be a lot easier and cheaper for Lynk to deploy than it was for Iridium, since launch costs have gone down significantly (while reliability is higher) and they use extremely small, cheap satellites (at least initially). They are planning on providing a fill-in-the-gaps service and are partnering with existing terrestrial service providers... Providers, at least with the next-generation version, won't have to provide cell towers (in places where there isn't otherwise enough demand to justify the large installation and upkeep costs) purely for gaining complete coverage. This is the sort of thing Iridium was never capable of. It should be pointed out that Iridium (post-bankruptcy) became profitable and has recently finished launching their entire second-generation constellation (on Falcon 9). Their subscriber base continues to grow.
- jandrese 7y ago
  I'm not so sure. One of the reasons cell phones work at all is that they are relatively close to the antenna. This service requires to antennas to be at least 100 miles away and doesn't have any provision to improve the gain on the client side. SMS may be roughly the limit of what they can provide in the available bandwidth. The inverse square law is a harsh mistress.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    There's always the option of increased gain on the serving side as well (both transmitting and receiving). 5G and related technologies allow beam steering which may improve gain (and selectivity) on the client side, and it's possible Apple may be working this angle on their side for whatever they're working on. In sparsely populated areas where the service could be valuable, I think they can get away with a lot more (as far as frequency usage) than they could for mobile in dense areas. So I think it could indeed be useful.
    - portillo 7y ago

newscracker 7y ago

I don’t see this as a game changer. It may be revolutionary in terms of technological achievement, but what’s the “killer app” for this? SMS is ok, because it is already unreliable on traditional cellular networks and there’s no saying how long a message would take to reach. Voice and data seems to be a fantasy, especially if it has to scale. Latency and packet loss (presuming it’s all going to be IP based) would make this almost as good as existing satellite Internet services or somewhat better than them. What’s new here that would make it work significantly better than current technology for voice and data, and how are the limits of physics being tested or worked around? If Apple wants to launch satellites that can communicate with phones directly, I’d prefer that the work go into better maps and better real time navigation (though I’m not sure how the latter could be helped much with satellites). Apple users need this more than anything novel and fancy if Google’s lead on this needs to be narrowed.

the_real_sparky 7y ago
On-board global SMS would probably destroy a good chunk of the SPOT GPS beacon market. The only advantage GPS beacons/emergency locators might have at that point is battery life, and someone like Apple could probably take that part of the market too with a “low power tracking” mode that only fired up briefly every 10 minutes to transmit your current location.
Multicomp 7y ago
I am no expert, but having normal cell phone speeds available most of the time, then backing off to 'IP-over-SMS (IoTXT?)' speeds when off the cell phone network carries a lot of value for me, not just in search and rescue scenarios, but maritime use, use in the back 40, and so on. Sure, we won't be able to stream media, but having slow and steady wireless communications vs. no signal at all is like comparing a running, rusty 1985 Volvo station wagon to a 2021 Porche 911 GTS with no wheels: one will move you from place to place, albeit at a stately pace and in no style, the other is super cool, and at this exact second in time, is unfit for the purpose of transporting a body from place to place.

taneq 7y ago

> Ubiquitilink (now called just Lynk) demonstrated the ability to communicate with existing, unmodified cellphones from orbit I spent way too long picturing a Samsung Galaxy drifting out of the cargo bay of a launch vehicle before realising you meant a satellite in orbit could connect to a standard phone on the ground.

portillo 7y ago

> to a self-described expert, who unfortunately didn't provide a ton of context), Are you questioning the expertise of Tim Farrar? If that is the case, you couldn't be more wrong. Check his blog and you will see he has been doing this thing for more than 20 years... Also, lynk will never be able to provide enough bandwidth to deliver internet connectivity. It is envisioned to be used for short messages.

Robotbeat 7y ago
If you're getting those latter two sentences from following his blog, you will understand why I said what I said. Lynk explicitly envisions the technology expanding beyond just text messages. They mention the speed over the LTE protocol of their satellite service is 180kbps, plenty for email, voice, streaming music, and some web browsing: http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1127710956 http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1127710956

_xerxes_ 7y ago

While from the articles Lynk is doing interesting and perhaps technically impressive work, I think they are going to struggle with competing with the deep pockets of the likes SpaceX, OneWeb, Blue Origin and now Apple and others. I see from the articles linked and their site that their business model is different, but I doubt they could sell enough service to cover the cost of launching and maintaining their own constellation. Their best hope (and plan) might be to get absorbed by one of the bigger players. It is hard to compete against a well-funded company that makes its own rockets and payloads and has access to hundreds of experienced engineers in their own and sister companies. I am not even that convinced that Lynk's idea would work from a technological point of view. A quick look at Wikipedia states that: "A low Earth orbit (LEO) is an Earth-centered orbit with an altitude of 2,000 km (1,200 mi) " I don't think you're getting a cell-signal to remain above the noise threshold/detectable level that far, especially under unfavorable atmospheric conditions. Yes, the satellite could have some impressive high-gain antenna, but the average cell phone is not going to transmit enough power to go more than 50 miles, let alone over a 1000. I'd genuinely love to see some data that contradicts me as I find the concept intriguing.

Robotbeat 7y ago
They actually demonstrated the link. LEO goes down to 200-400km altitude. Their prototype was at 400km altitude. What makes their technology impressive is the ability to work beyond the usual ~20 mile limit without modifying user hardware. A good article: "For example, a standard cell phone connected to a terrestrial tower generally has a range limited to around 35 kilometers (21 miles) if the line-of-sight is not interrupted by hills, buildings, or foliage. The phone signal can travel further, but the reception range is artificially limited by the highly accurate time frames of the cell phone protocol. To get the phone to connect to a satellite flying 500 kilometers (310 miles) overhead, Lynk’s software at the satellite overcomes the built-in time-frame distance limit built into standard phone protocols." http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1127710956 http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1127710956