5 ms·

The SpaceX FCC filings indicate reachability down to 25 degrees above the horizon, so it's not clear why 60 degrees was chosen in this animation. I do understa

The SpaceX FCC filings indicate reachability down to 25 degrees above the horizon, so it's not clear why 60 degrees was chosen in this animation. I do understand that the satellites are deployed into lower orbits, but satellites from launches 1, 2 and 3 (and some of launch 4) are now at 550km: https://twitter.com/StarlinkUpdates/status/1273269220130861065 https://twitter.com/StarlinkUpdates/status/12732692201308610... Those launches are shown way too low in this map. From measuring pixels, I make them to be roughly 200km. Edit: maybe I'm being pedantic here, but the combination of showing artifically small coverage zones, plus showing satellites much lower than they are so giving a misleading impression of how much area each satellite can see, taken together give the misleading impression that Starlink coverage will be worse than it will actually be.

LeoPanthera 6y ago
Possibly intentionally misleading, the author makes several disparaging comments of Starlink at the bottom of /about
- greeneggs 6y ago
  I think you, and others, might just be misinterpreting the point of the map. My take is that it is to help people look for the satellites. A 60 degree above the horizon cutoff isn't unreasonable, and making the circles much larger would clutter the map. I find it helpful, anyway. (And to me, at least, it is more helpful than a hypothetical coverage map, since I can't get Starlink internet now.)
  - bigtones 6y ago
    No it's not being misinterpreted, the parent comment is right - the website author has a negative biased agenda against Starlink and Elon Musk, as evidenced from the website's own About page: * No evidence a working starlink network can offer lower latency, or lower prices, than terrestial * Impact on earth based telescopes has not been discussed * Starlink is a play for pentagon funding to keep SpaceX launch schedule busy?
    - shaklee3 6y ago
      How is this biased: "No evidence a working starlink network can offer lower latency, or lower prices, than terrestial"? The FCC themselves don't believe the 100ms, and the price nobody in the industry thinks will be affordable since they haven't released any info about their user antenna.
mNovak 6y ago
60deg is more likely to be due to the limitation of the smaller "pizza box" user antenna, as opposed to the (likely much larger) spaceX operated gateways, which would feasibly reach down to 25deg. If I recall the FCC filing correctly, the constellation was intended to always have a sat >50deg above horizon.
- mhandley 6y ago
  The original filing was for reachability down to 40 degrees above the horizon. When they lowered the altitude from 1100 km to 550km, they reduced the angle to 25 degrees above the horizon for the first phase.

LeoPanthera 6y ago

Possibly intentionally misleading, the author makes several disparaging comments of Starlink at the bottom of /about

greeneggs 6y ago
I think you, and others, might just be misinterpreting the point of the map. My take is that it is to help people look for the satellites. A 60 degree above the horizon cutoff isn't unreasonable, and making the circles much larger would clutter the map. I find it helpful, anyway. (And to me, at least, it is more helpful than a hypothetical coverage map, since I can't get Starlink internet now.)
- bigtones 6y ago
  No it's not being misinterpreted, the parent comment is right - the website author has a negative biased agenda against Starlink and Elon Musk, as evidenced from the website's own About page: * No evidence a working starlink network can offer lower latency, or lower prices, than terrestial * Impact on earth based telescopes has not been discussed * Starlink is a play for pentagon funding to keep SpaceX launch schedule busy?
  - shaklee3 6y ago
    How is this biased: "No evidence a working starlink network can offer lower latency, or lower prices, than terrestial"? The FCC themselves don't believe the 100ms, and the price nobody in the industry thinks will be affordable since they haven't released any info about their user antenna.

mNovak 6y ago

60deg is more likely to be due to the limitation of the smaller "pizza box" user antenna, as opposed to the (likely much larger) spaceX operated gateways, which would feasibly reach down to 25deg. If I recall the FCC filing correctly, the constellation was intended to always have a sat >50deg above horizon.

mhandley 6y ago
The original filing was for reachability down to 40 degrees above the horizon. When they lowered the altitude from 1100 km to 550km, they reduced the angle to 25 degrees above the horizon for the first phase.