3 ms·
https://xkcd.com/1656/ https://xkcd.com/1656/ Seriously, though, they are probably compensating for failure to get the "can" launching system (aka "starship")
by pencilguin 4y ago
https://xkcd.com/1656/ https://xkcd.com/1656/
Seriously, though, they are probably compensating for failure to get the "can" launching system (aka "starship") online that would enable lofting new higher bandwidth satellites. The cans would have more and, more importantly, bigger payload. If it takes too long to get the can going, they could probably shift to Falcon Heavy and a bigger shroud. But without the can, it costs too much to operate, steady-state.
Starlink is pretty severely limited on aggregate bandwidth. They could do a lot to mitigate this by coming up with ways to deliver the hottest realtime streams (e.g. World Cup) via a broadcast protocol, and to partner with Akamai etc. to cache a few hundred TB of other content aloft, to save on uplink bandwidth.
Capping is easier.
- ftth_finland 4y agoIt’s really hard to cache content pre-emptively. Netflix uses multiple Gbps per cache node during off hours to refresh content in order to get decent hit rates. And Netflix is just one service with a limited content library.
- pencilguin 4y agoThe laser links between satellites may be much less burdened than the uplink from the ground hub station nearest to the subscriber. SpaceX can upload content to the constellation via more-lightly loaded ground hubs, and propagate to the rest. They have the advantage that they can know what was being streamed in an area a satellite is about to enter, and can preload the parts it will need to downlink while there. Of course all this requires intimate cooperation with the streaming service, because it is at a much higher level than packets.