6 ms·

>I'll believe it when I see it. This whole "yea inter-sat free space fiber links are totally going to happen" charade smacks of the same hype baiting as "full

by Phlarp 4y ago

>I'll believe it when I see it. This whole "yea inter-sat free space fiber links are totally going to happen" charade smacks of the same hype baiting as "full self driving by end of year" nonsense that Elon has been spouting since 2018. The Starlink "team" did an AMA on reddit[0] last year and it was comical how empty the answers were. People asked about the space lasers and the answers were all "yea it's a really hard problem, BTW we're hiring!" which honestly felt like an admission from HR that they're looking for engineers willing/able to cash the checks marketing already wrote. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jzozv3/every_answer_from_the_starlink_team_ama/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jzozv3/every_answ...

mlyle 4y ago
It's not that hard of a problem to do fast free-space optical in space within a single orbital shell. The only thing that makes it hard for SpaceX is the relatively small mass and volume budgets on their satellites to do precision pointing with, and that you'd really want each satellite to be able to do multiple links and that's taking up a lot of space.
- Phlarp 4y ago
  The laser part seems easy, the targeting part seems hard. I'm imaging some type of gimbal, is there a better way? Also seems likely that if they can find a way to make small sats with the ability to accurately point a laser at another sat, that would have pretty obvious implications to the defense dept. SpaceX is a military contractor after all.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > The laser part seems easy, the targeting part seems hard. I'm imaging some type of gimbal, is there a better way? Here's the design 101 from base principles: In practice, you need a big-ish telescope on both ends to control beamspread and to collect light from a big aperture. Aperture is a given based on link budget (and you can trade off power to make the aperture smaller, but halving the aperture diameter on both sides means you'll need 16x the power); if you target F/2 then it'll be twice as long as the aperture. Maybe think about a 6cm aperture and 12cm long telescope for a starting point. This will get you a 6 arcsecond wide beam @ 1000nm. Then, you need to slew this at pretty fast rates-- perhaps 15 degrees per second for acquisition, and control the pointing within 3 arcseconds while tracking at peak rates of a few degrees per second. Yeek! This pretty quickly takes you towards some kind of direct drive fork mount that is very gimbally-looking. One bit of fun is that you need to have a lot of bandwidth on your reaction control system on the spacecraft, too-- because when you snap one of these telescopes around, the whole craft is going to want to counterrotate, so the reaction control wheels (and/or other telescopes for links in other directions) will need to react. Feedforward is advised.
    - Phlarp 4y ago
      I was thinking of a gimbal to point the laser, but now that you've introduced mini telescopes and the jerk plus reaction control systems on the rx side of this equation I'm out. For inter-sat comms directional / beam formed RF feels like a better solution. The only reason you'd go for lasers here is thin civilian cover for developing a weapons platform.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        > For inter-sat comms directional / beam formed RF feels like a better solution. You can't get the same degree of directivity. As wavelength decreases, you get more directivity for a given aperture. Light has 1/5000th the wavelength of plausible radio links, so both the sender and the receiver can have much higher gains. You also can have much more bandwidth, and thus you obtain many orders of magnitude higher data rates per unit of power used. E.g. a 6cm telescope has 82dB of gain on each side for 1000nm light. A 1 meter aperture (about what a 3.2x1.6x0.2m Starlink satellite can likely present to another satellite) has 53dB of gain on each side. So for equivalent power, you have 6 orders of magnitude more signal strength, and you can occupy 10x the bandwidth, too, even if you have a very large phased array. > The only reason you'd go for lasers here is thin civilian cover for developing a weapons platform. This kind of system has very little in common with how I would build an anti-satellite laser system.
- shaklee3 4y ago
  it's extremely hard to do at those data rates. if it wasn't there would be existing examples. Facebook tried and failed.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > it's extremely hard to do at those data rates. ? > if it wasn't there would be existing examples. Let's see. NASA downlinked from the moon to the ground, through the atmosphere at OC-12 rates back in 2013-- so about 100x the distance, with the added penalty of traversing the atmosphere. NFIRE did 5.6 gigabit/sec LEO to ground (again through the atmosphere) in 2011-- shorter distances but higher angular rates which is the "hard part". And EDRS does 1.8gbit/sec over longer distances in geostationary orbit. Both flown and proven.
    - shaklee3 4y ago
      are you really comparing the moon to the earth with two satellites at much closer distances moving rapidly?
      - mlyle 4y ago
        > are you really comparing the moon to the earth with two satellites at much closer distances moving rapidly? I'm comparing to LEO to ground, which has a higher rate of angular movement (e.g. harder to point at) than LEO-to-LEO in the same shell, among other things. I've built systems that point to sub-arcsecond precision at satellites in LEO. It's not quite an off-the-shelf controls problem (e.g. good luck getting a COTS motion controller to hit-a-fast-moving-target-at-a-chosen-time, rather than follow a track and not care about time) but it's not super hard, either.
        shaklee3 4y ago
        you should probably have worked for Facebook a few years back when they threw billions at the problem and couldn't solve it.
Johnythree 4y ago
With the satellites flying in formation, the angle of each link doesn't change much.
jhugo 4y ago
You may not be aware that Iridium has been doing inter-satellite links since the late 90s. Using optical rather than RF doesn't really change the game that much.
- wolrah 4y ago
  > Using optical rather than RF doesn't really change the game that much. The precision required for aiming is directly related to the wavelength. Iridium NEXT satellites use Ka band with a wavelength around ten millimeters where anything light related has a wavelength measured in hundreds of nanometers. The forward/backward links are a lot easier than the inter-plane links, but it's still not trivial because you're trying to hit an object the size of a small car with a laser from over 1000 miles away. Not impossible by any means, but there's not a lot of margin for error when they're looking to be able to transfer around 100 gigabits per second over this link. Other FSO systems work at significantly lower bandwidth and/or shorter range. That's not even getting in to the inter-plane links, where the target is constantly moving even in a relative sense.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Doesn't RF just get shot in all directions and get picked up by the satellites easily, whereas the lasers need to aim precisely when transmitted?
  - jhugo 4y ago
    You'd need an excessively powerful transmitter to use an omnidirectional antenna. In the context of a satellite, where power efficiency is crucial, it makes much more sense to use a lower-power transmitter and a directional antenna / beamforming.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      Hmmm... but less precision is still required than optical lasers, right?
      - 4y ago

by Phlarp 4y ago

mlyle 4y ago

It's not that hard of a problem to do fast free-space optical in space within a single orbital shell. The only thing that makes it hard for SpaceX is the relatively small mass and volume budgets on their satellites to do precision pointing with, and that you'd really want each satellite to be able to do multiple links and that's taking up a lot of space.

Phlarp 4y ago
The laser part seems easy, the targeting part seems hard. I'm imaging some type of gimbal, is there a better way? Also seems likely that if they can find a way to make small sats with the ability to accurately point a laser at another sat, that would have pretty obvious implications to the defense dept. SpaceX is a military contractor after all.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > The laser part seems easy, the targeting part seems hard. I'm imaging some type of gimbal, is there a better way? Here's the design 101 from base principles: In practice, you need a big-ish telescope on both ends to control beamspread and to collect light from a big aperture. Aperture is a given based on link budget (and you can trade off power to make the aperture smaller, but halving the aperture diameter on both sides means you'll need 16x the power); if you target F/2 then it'll be twice as long as the aperture. Maybe think about a 6cm aperture and 12cm long telescope for a starting point. This will get you a 6 arcsecond wide beam @ 1000nm. Then, you need to slew this at pretty fast rates-- perhaps 15 degrees per second for acquisition, and control the pointing within 3 arcseconds while tracking at peak rates of a few degrees per second. Yeek! This pretty quickly takes you towards some kind of direct drive fork mount that is very gimbally-looking. One bit of fun is that you need to have a lot of bandwidth on your reaction control system on the spacecraft, too-- because when you snap one of these telescopes around, the whole craft is going to want to counterrotate, so the reaction control wheels (and/or other telescopes for links in other directions) will need to react. Feedforward is advised.
  - Phlarp 4y ago
    I was thinking of a gimbal to point the laser, but now that you've introduced mini telescopes and the jerk plus reaction control systems on the rx side of this equation I'm out. For inter-sat comms directional / beam formed RF feels like a better solution. The only reason you'd go for lasers here is thin civilian cover for developing a weapons platform.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > For inter-sat comms directional / beam formed RF feels like a better solution. You can't get the same degree of directivity. As wavelength decreases, you get more directivity for a given aperture. Light has 1/5000th the wavelength of plausible radio links, so both the sender and the receiver can have much higher gains. You also can have much more bandwidth, and thus you obtain many orders of magnitude higher data rates per unit of power used. E.g. a 6cm telescope has 82dB of gain on each side for 1000nm light. A 1 meter aperture (about what a 3.2x1.6x0.2m Starlink satellite can likely present to another satellite) has 53dB of gain on each side. So for equivalent power, you have 6 orders of magnitude more signal strength, and you can occupy 10x the bandwidth, too, even if you have a very large phased array. > The only reason you'd go for lasers here is thin civilian cover for developing a weapons platform. This kind of system has very little in common with how I would build an anti-satellite laser system.
shaklee3 4y ago
it's extremely hard to do at those data rates. if it wasn't there would be existing examples. Facebook tried and failed.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > it's extremely hard to do at those data rates. ? > if it wasn't there would be existing examples. Let's see. NASA downlinked from the moon to the ground, through the atmosphere at OC-12 rates back in 2013-- so about 100x the distance, with the added penalty of traversing the atmosphere. NFIRE did 5.6 gigabit/sec LEO to ground (again through the atmosphere) in 2011-- shorter distances but higher angular rates which is the "hard part". And EDRS does 1.8gbit/sec over longer distances in geostationary orbit. Both flown and proven.
  - shaklee3 4y ago
    are you really comparing the moon to the earth with two satellites at much closer distances moving rapidly?
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > are you really comparing the moon to the earth with two satellites at much closer distances moving rapidly? I'm comparing to LEO to ground, which has a higher rate of angular movement (e.g. harder to point at) than LEO-to-LEO in the same shell, among other things. I've built systems that point to sub-arcsecond precision at satellites in LEO. It's not quite an off-the-shelf controls problem (e.g. good luck getting a COTS motion controller to hit-a-fast-moving-target-at-a-chosen-time, rather than follow a track and not care about time) but it's not super hard, either.
      - shaklee3 4y ago
        you should probably have worked for Facebook a few years back when they threw billions at the problem and couldn't solve it.

Johnythree 4y ago

With the satellites flying in formation, the angle of each link doesn't change much.

jhugo 4y ago

You may not be aware that Iridium has been doing inter-satellite links since the late 90s. Using optical rather than RF doesn't really change the game that much.

wolrah 4y ago
> Using optical rather than RF doesn't really change the game that much. The precision required for aiming is directly related to the wavelength. Iridium NEXT satellites use Ka band with a wavelength around ten millimeters where anything light related has a wavelength measured in hundreds of nanometers. The forward/backward links are a lot easier than the inter-plane links, but it's still not trivial because you're trying to hit an object the size of a small car with a laser from over 1000 miles away. Not impossible by any means, but there's not a lot of margin for error when they're looking to be able to transfer around 100 gigabits per second over this link. Other FSO systems work at significantly lower bandwidth and/or shorter range. That's not even getting in to the inter-plane links, where the target is constantly moving even in a relative sense.
HWR_14 4y ago
Doesn't RF just get shot in all directions and get picked up by the satellites easily, whereas the lasers need to aim precisely when transmitted?
- jhugo 4y ago
  You'd need an excessively powerful transmitter to use an omnidirectional antenna. In the context of a satellite, where power efficiency is crucial, it makes much more sense to use a lower-power transmitter and a directional antenna / beamforming.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Hmmm... but less precision is still required than optical lasers, right?
    - 4y ago