5 ms·

W-Band is definitely interesting. Wish they had more competition but SpaceX is just crushing it when it comes to execution.

by jpgvm 3y ago

Metus 3y ago
As an amateur, that follows SpaceX from a distance, what makes the W-band so interesting?
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  The first satellite to fly W Band was in 2021. It supports much higher data rates but has atmospheric attenuation issues. This would be the first commercial use of it. It's possible SpaceX is using this to reduce downlink bottlenecks. https://web.archive.org/web/20231012142827/https://re.public.polimi.it/retrieve/handle/11311/820925/407896/The%20challenge%20of%20using%20the%20W%20band%20in%20satellite%20communication_11311-820925_Riva.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20231012142827/https://re.public... https://connectivity.esa.int/news/first-wband-transmission-space https://connectivity.esa.int/news/first-wband-transmission-s... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_band
  - lazide 3y ago
    It also has a history of active military use, especially for detecting weapons.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Excellent callout. Might be a component of Starshield. Hard to say until the RF is active in the wild or FCC filings are public (is it possible SpaceX is filing in Tonga to sidestep FCC public filings on the tech?). Would be wild if this system will be able to provide global airspace radar surveillance to the US DoD with high precision. https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-satellite-internet-military-starlink https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-satellite-internet-m... https://www.spacex.com/starshield/ https://www.spacex.com/starshield/
- HPsquared 3y ago
  I'm a fellow amateur, but I would say it allows higher bandwidth than X-band. It's a higher frequency range, shorter wavelength. Edit: it might be worse for signal propagation through the atmosphere though... https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Technology/Shaping_the_Future/Are_signals_at_W-band_frequencies_good_enough_for_communications https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Techn... Probably a bit like 2.4 GHz vs 5GHz WiFi.
- h2odragon 3y ago
  The "passive radar" resolution on the WiFi frequencies isn't good enough anymore; the shorter wavelengths will allow imaging of individual cells.
mcpackieh 3y ago
They have a lot of competition, maybe too much. From wikipedia, nominally active space companies besides SpaceX include: > Arianespace, Astra, Axiom Space, Bigelow Aerospace, Blue Origin, Equatorial Space Systems, Firefly Aerospace, Galactic Energy, i-Space, Northrop Grumman, Redwire, Relativity Space, Rocket Lab, Scaled Composites, The Spaceship Company, United Launch Alliance, Virgin Galactic Most of these have accomplished little and are destined to be forgotten (or never known by most people in the first place.) If SpaceX had fewer competitors, maybe engineer resources wouldn't be spread so thin and some of their competitors could actually compete in a meaningful sense. But it's not just a problem of resources. Some of these companies have backers with deep pockets, and had every opportunity to accomplish what SpaceX has. Arianespace is backed by the French government; they've been in business for 20 years longer than SpaceX. They've built and flown hundreds of rockets. With that 20 year head start, extensive experience and backing of a powerful government, have they innovated? Nope. Ariane 6, still not flying, won't be reusable. Ariane Next should be, but they only started development on that a few years ago (2019-2021-ish) If it doesn't get delayed, Ariane Next will be a Falcon 9 competitor 20 years too late. Arianespace are so far behind SpaceX it physically pains me as a francophile. Or Blue Origin. They were founded by Jeff Bezos in America two years before SpaceX was founded. They're a private company operating in the US backed by a billionaire with insanely deep pockets, just like SpaceX. They hired and have been hiring tons of great engineers with proven track records in the space industry. So what have they accomplished? They've put nothing put into orbit, ever. Not a single orbital test let alone fulfilled contract. They won a contract to sell engines to ULA for Vulcan, and subsequently caused Vulcan to be delayed for many years by their failure to deliver those engines on time. They may actually end up killing ULA like this; Atlas V and Delta IV / Heavy are end of life.. ULA needs Vulcan to continue fulfilling new contracts. And why is ULA on the precipice? How could Blue Origin's failure do this to ULA? ULA were founded a few years after SpaceX, but as a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed and inherited their technology and engineering talent from those companies. They're a darling of the American military-industrial complex, the favored launcher of the Pentagon's most advanced and expensive satellites. So why haven't they innovated? Instead of innovating, they've wasted their time and money building the same old rockets they inherited. Instead of developing their own new engines, they decided to buy engines from the likes of Russia(!!!) and Blue Origin. ULA had all the opportunity in the world but they squandered it because of poor leadership. Why does SpaceX succeed where the others flounder and fail? It's not because SpaceX had more time, money, or experience; they have several competitors with all of those in spades. It's not because of the regulatory environment SpaceX operates in, because they share that with at least some of the others as well. It's because SpaceX has more visionary leadership. I know a lot of you hate Elon Musk so you will hate this conclusion, but I challenge you to explain it any other way. Arianespace, ULA and Blue Origin each could have done what SpaceX is doing, but didn't because they have ineffective leadership with no vision for the future. Arianespace, ULA and Blue Origin wanted to plod along selling antique rockets at the speed of government molasses so they got blindsided by the company that's actually trying.

W-Band is definitely interesting. Wish they had more competition but SpaceX is just crushing it when it comes to execution.

by jpgvm 3y ago

W-Band is definitely interesting. Wish they had more competition but SpaceX is just crushing it when it comes to execution.

Metus 3y ago

As an amateur, that follows SpaceX from a distance, what makes the W-band so interesting?

toomuchtodo 3y ago
The first satellite to fly W Band was in 2021. It supports much higher data rates but has atmospheric attenuation issues. This would be the first commercial use of it. It's possible SpaceX is using this to reduce downlink bottlenecks. https://web.archive.org/web/20231012142827/https://re.public.polimi.it/retrieve/handle/11311/820925/407896/The%20challenge%20of%20using%20the%20W%20band%20in%20satellite%20communication_11311-820925_Riva.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20231012142827/https://re.public... https://connectivity.esa.int/news/first-wband-transmission-space https://connectivity.esa.int/news/first-wband-transmission-s... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_band
- lazide 3y ago
  It also has a history of active military use, especially for detecting weapons.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Excellent callout. Might be a component of Starshield. Hard to say until the RF is active in the wild or FCC filings are public (is it possible SpaceX is filing in Tonga to sidestep FCC public filings on the tech?). Would be wild if this system will be able to provide global airspace radar surveillance to the US DoD with high precision. https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-satellite-internet-military-starlink https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-satellite-internet-m... https://www.spacex.com/starshield/ https://www.spacex.com/starshield/
HPsquared 3y ago
I'm a fellow amateur, but I would say it allows higher bandwidth than X-band. It's a higher frequency range, shorter wavelength. Edit: it might be worse for signal propagation through the atmosphere though... https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Technology/Shaping_the_Future/Are_signals_at_W-band_frequencies_good_enough_for_communications https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Techn... Probably a bit like 2.4 GHz vs 5GHz WiFi.
h2odragon 3y ago
The "passive radar" resolution on the WiFi frequencies isn't good enough anymore; the shorter wavelengths will allow imaging of individual cells.

mcpackieh 3y ago

They have a lot of competition, maybe too much. From wikipedia, nominally active space companies besides SpaceX include: > Arianespace, Astra, Axiom Space, Bigelow Aerospace, Blue Origin, Equatorial Space Systems, Firefly Aerospace, Galactic Energy, i-Space, Northrop Grumman, Redwire, Relativity Space, Rocket Lab, Scaled Composites, The Spaceship Company, United Launch Alliance, Virgin Galactic Most of these have accomplished little and are destined to be forgotten (or never known by most people in the first place.) If SpaceX had fewer competitors, maybe engineer resources wouldn't be spread so thin and some of their competitors could actually compete in a meaningful sense. But it's not just a problem of resources. Some of these companies have backers with deep pockets, and had every opportunity to accomplish what SpaceX has. Arianespace is backed by the French government; they've been in business for 20 years longer than SpaceX. They've built and flown hundreds of rockets. With that 20 year head start, extensive experience and backing of a powerful government, have they innovated? Nope. Ariane 6, still not flying, won't be reusable. Ariane Next should be, but they only started development on that a few years ago (2019-2021-ish) If it doesn't get delayed, Ariane Next will be a Falcon 9 competitor 20 years too late. Arianespace are so far behind SpaceX it physically pains me as a francophile. Or Blue Origin. They were founded by Jeff Bezos in America two years before SpaceX was founded. They're a private company operating in the US backed by a billionaire with insanely deep pockets, just like SpaceX. They hired and have been hiring tons of great engineers with proven track records in the space industry. So what have they accomplished? They've put nothing put into orbit, ever. Not a single orbital test let alone fulfilled contract. They won a contract to sell engines to ULA for Vulcan, and subsequently caused Vulcan to be delayed for many years by their failure to deliver those engines on time. They may actually end up killing ULA like this; Atlas V and Delta IV / Heavy are end of life.. ULA needs Vulcan to continue fulfilling new contracts. And why is ULA on the precipice? How could Blue Origin's failure do this to ULA? ULA were founded a few years after SpaceX, but as a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed and inherited their technology and engineering talent from those companies. They're a darling of the American military-industrial complex, the favored launcher of the Pentagon's most advanced and expensive satellites. So why haven't they innovated? Instead of innovating, they've wasted their time and money building the same old rockets they inherited. Instead of developing their own new engines, they decided to buy engines from the likes of Russia(!!!) and Blue Origin. ULA had all the opportunity in the world but they squandered it because of poor leadership. Why does SpaceX succeed where the others flounder and fail? It's not because SpaceX had more time, money, or experience; they have several competitors with all of those in spades. It's not because of the regulatory environment SpaceX operates in, because they share that with at least some of the others as well. It's because SpaceX has more visionary leadership. I know a lot of you hate Elon Musk so you will hate this conclusion, but I challenge you to explain it any other way. Arianespace, ULA and Blue Origin each could have done what SpaceX is doing, but didn't because they have ineffective leadership with no vision for the future. Arianespace, ULA and Blue Origin wanted to plod along selling antique rockets at the speed of government molasses so they got blindsided by the company that's actually trying.