5 ms·
Yeah that's not how it works. You can't just "put the complicated antenna on the satellite, instead of on the phone" and declare this problem solved. If you bel
by assttoasstmgr 4y ago
Yeah that's not how it works. You can't just "put the complicated antenna on the satellite, instead of on the phone" and declare this problem solved. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
I'm declaring shenanigans right now on Elon's pitch but what else is new. It makes me sad that this thread is full of (probably) SWEs in a complete froth who took this at face value with little understanding of how antennas work. No, your existing phone will not be able to work on this service, full stop.
The issue is not getting signal from the satellite to your phone. That's the easy part - after all, your phone receives GPS signals. Satellites have powerful transmitters and high-gain antennas. Even GPS which is considered extremely low-power has a TX power of around 20-25 watts and EIRP is probably an order of magnitude higher after the antenna (probably enough to turn your eyeballs into Easter eggs if you were standing in front of it). The issue is going the other way. For messaging to work, your phone needs a two-way connection. Your current iPhone/Android handset is simply not designed for satellite communication.
"But muh Garmin inReach" ..... have you stared at one and wondered "why can't my iPhone do this"? First, the antenna is the size of a thumb, it looks like a helical antenna to me, which would make sense given that most satellite communications uses something called "circular polarization" to combat things like the Faraday effect. This requires an antenna specifically designed for it. Your iPhone doesn't have one, which means more signal loss. Iridium phones look similar - very Michael Douglas in Wall Street industrial design. Satellite phones and communicators are designed to direct most of the energy upwards towards the sky. Your existing phone does not so you are losing most of the energy in an omnidirectional pattern. Even things like 406 MHz emergency beacons send extremely short message bursts - just a few bytes - the link budget needed to sustain an IP connection (uplink) with an existing handset just isn't there.
So I'm expecting Elon to deliver on the magical complicated-super-antenna that works with your existing mobile handset right around the same time he gives us his FSD Cybertruck. Which is to say, never.
- samatman 4y agoPhased arrays are pretty cool, if I had no idea how they worked I'd be incredulous as well.
- fastball 4y agoCan you show your calculations for this? From the sound of it the Starlink antenna is going to be a 25 m^2 phased array antenna, which I believe would have impressive gain.
- pishpash 4y agoIf this worked why is a Starlink receiver a cat-warming dish and not a cellphone antenna?
- fastball 4y agoBecause (existing) Starlink is for home internet where people want good bandwidth? e.g. 100Mbps per household vs the stated plans for this which is 2-4Mbps per cell region. And because existing Starlink satellites don't have giant phased array antennas on them.
- rblatz 4y agoI would assume v2 only receivers/transmitters could be much smaller.
- sbierwagen 4y ago>"circular polarization" to combat things like the Faraday effect Another factor is that the antenna on a satellite can be in a pretty arbitrary rotation compared to the receiver on the ground. Circular polarization doesn't care about orientation. Further discussion here: https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/12414/antenna-polarization-when-dealing-with-satellite-communications https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/12414/antenna-polari... >Satellite phones and communicators are designed to direct most of the energy upwards towards the sky. Your existing phone does not Recent iphones run 2x2 MIMO on mmWave and 4x4 MIMO on LTE. They should be able to do a fair bit of beamforming.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mhio 4y agoThis isn't a Starlink/SpaceX scheme. Non-terrestrial networks are being worked into the 3GPP specifications and highlight the same handset difficulties that need to be addressed. It's not the phone currently in your pocket that does this but might be fine on the phone you get in the next few years. https://www.3gpp.org/news-events/partners-news/2254-ntn_rel17 https://www.3gpp.org/news-events/partners-news/2254-ntn_rel1... The BlueWalker 3 test satellite from AST should launch in the next couple of months. Looks like a pretty complicated phased array antenna: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50349.msg2351572#msg2351572 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50349.msg2...
- assttoasstmgr 4y ago> It's not the phone currently in your pocket that does this but might be fine on the phone you get in the next few years. I don't think anyone's questioning this - yet there's people here rage-posting the ludicrous assertion that the very handset in your pocket right now will work with Starlink unmodified. This is what I have an issue with. More FSD-style overpromising and underdelivering all over again.
- mhio 4y agoThey did go a bit hard on the existing phone's bit, tmobile guy at least used the word "aspiration" when mentioning it. I somehow doubt it, but maybe phone radio implementations are very forward looking on the standards? In any case, late '23 never means '23. So maybe actual useful service in '25-'26 when the network, phones and sats are all ready.