7 ms·
FCC Denies Starlink Low-Orbit Bid for Lower Latency
- extraduder_ire 3y agoSeems kind of odd that the FCC is basing their decision on safety in those orbits rather than something radio or communication based. I assume someone has to enforce that limit, but I'd have thought it'd be the FAA.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoThe FCC perspective is that issues like orbital debris mitigation fall within its remit of understanding whether the public interest is appropriately served by authorizing a particular use of the spectrum; which seems reasonable to me.
- vmfunction 3y agoWhoever solves the orbital debris issue will be more important than Gates, Steve and Musk combined! It is a real issues, and nobody has a properly solution. Before we launch a bunch of tech into space, let's figure out how to do that. So we don't turn or orbit like the landfill here on earth.
- lupusreal 3y agoThere is no orbital debris problem in LEO. Anything in LEO experiences atmospheric drag and only stays up there for a few years unless periodically boosted. If the worst case scenario unfolded in LEO, a few thousand satellites in LEO got smeared by something like ASAT weapons and caused a huge cloud of debris that started wrecking anything new put up there, we could simply wait the problem out in less than one generation.
- osigurdson 3y agoThe FCC's job is to keep the space station safe.
- voxadam 3y agoIsn't it that more the FAA's job? I suppose if were chiefly talking about keeping the station and it's occupants safe from being harmed by an intentional radiator[0] I could see it being the purview of FCC. In this case it seems like what's of concern is the possibility of an orbital collision, that sounds like the FAA's bailiwick to me. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_radiator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_radiator
- osigurdson 3y agoI was just kidding. I'm not sure who's job it is actually.
- h4kor 3y agoIt's still a mystery to me how building a mega constellation of satellites is more achievable than burrowing some fibers and building cell towers. The only application I see where Starlink is preferred to "traditional" communication system is warfare.
- redeeman 3y agothose things needs all sorts of permits and interactions with governments. This illuminates the true cost of such
- lupusreal 3y agoTurns out that putting things in space isn't really all that expensive, once you move past the Old Space models.
- stickfigure 3y agoYou vastly underestimate the scale required to serve a large country like the US with cell towers. Maybe in Kansas sure, but hilly areas block line of sight. I live an hour from SF and I don't have cell service in my house. I can make/receive calls because of Starlink.
- kredd 3y agoI’m actually curious what’s the percentage of people not covered by cell reception in USA vs rural areas of other big countries like China and Russia. I know in Canada it’s somewhat similar, but people who live in northern Ontario/BC in tiny towns still have decent cell reception. Not everywhere, but still. I could see governments with more top-down approach would be able to complete “everyone gets covered” mission much easier than US/Canada. A lot of money burning since there is no/little profitability, but I could see it being a greater good for the citizens.
- op00to 3y agoCan you get land line service? When was your house built?
- lupusreal 3y agoThe ISS will be gone in a few years anyway, so this problem should sort itself out.
- plopz 3y agoIt's not even clear that the ISS is the issue, that's just the opinion of one dude from the UK. It's a very strange article.
- wtfwhateven 3y agoIt's quoted in the article in the first paragraph and is mentioned on page 16 of the order that is linked in the article...
- AnarchismIsCool 3y agoYeah the ISS is actually a big consideration when doing orbital stuff. If you plan on changing orbit across the path of the ISS (remembering that all orbits of a given altitude insect) you have to do significantly more paperwork and be able to show you can make the transit quickly without stopping and getting stuck on a collision course with it.
- sidewndr46 3y agoIf you're regulated by the European Union, the US, Russia or Japan sure. Otherwise low earth orbit is close to a free for all.
- AnarchismIsCool 3y agoSpaceX is in the US. Also, it's where you're located, not just where you're regulated. People have gotten their pp smacked pretty hard for playing the "oh, you won't grant an FCC license? We'll just use a launch provider in India" game.
- frumiousirc 3y agoNobody seems to be talking about the main point. Latency. > very low earth orbits (VLEO) ranging from 340 to 360 kilometers > Starlink currently has nearly 6000 satellites orbiting at around 550 kilometers > its service ... with average latencies ... over 30 milliseconds at best, and double that at peak times. What is unsaid in the article is how much of that latency is due to time of flight and how much is due to buffers and processing inside a satellite. The stated fact that the latency "doubles at peak times" implies that some portion of the stated 30ms is not time of flight So how much is actually due to time of flight? One of the linked articles claims: > 8 ms is the absolute minimum latency for a satellite at 550 km When a satellite is exactly above head the round trip time at the speed of light is a bit shy of 4ms. This "8ms" must be some average over a minimum solid angle that still allows for an acceptable level of signal reception. It is a reasonable number. Lowering to VLEO gives the above head latency of a bit over 2ms. Being lower, the solid angle for reception is less. They may actually need in total more satellites than at higher orbits. In any case, the average would probably be something less than the 2x from the 550km case. But, let's say "4ms" compared to "8ms". So, by going to VLEO, the best they can do is knock off about 4ms from their "30ms at best". It seems that polluting VLEO will not even achieve "The biggest single goal for Starlink from a technical standpoint is to get the mean latency below 20 milliseconds," said Elon Musk. There is some other reason for pushing into VLEO than reducing latency.
- pid-1 3y agoMaybe closer to earth -> better signal -> less processing needed / cheaper satellites? I don't even work with RF so this is baseless guessing.
- Tuna-Fish 3y agoYou seem to only consider the roundtrip to the satellite and back. To talk to anything other than the satellite itself, you need to double that. The lowest allowed angle to the horizon is 25°. This makes the worst-case RTT for talking to someone near you on the ground 17ms. > They may actually need in total more satellites than at higher orbits. This is a desirable feature. There are limits on how much bandwidth they can push through a single satellite, and minimum allowed angular separations between two satellites the same place can be talking to. Lower orbit allow larger constellations, because the ground stations cumulatively have "more sky". The primary reason to push for VLEO is that it is a safer orbit. As a general rule, everyone is better off the lower large constellations are, because in case of a worst-case collision the debris will deorbit faster. It's also better for astronomy.
- wonderwonder 3y agoHow does the FCC have jurisdiction in space? If one was to say its because signals are being sent back to the US, fair enough but why would the point of origin of the satellite from earth come into play. At what point does their jurisdiction end? Genuine questions
- inemesitaffia 3y agoJurisdiction inherited from the ITU