Starlink plans to launch texting service in 2024, voice/data in 2025(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Starlink plans to launch texting service in 2024, voice/data in 2025
https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/12/23914081/spacex-starlink-direct-to-cell-satellite-internet-lte-connectivity
97 comments
> My hunch is that if Elon keeps pushing it this direction it will be nationalized in order to bring it under government control.
"Nationalize SpaceX" is a fantasy engineered in a clickbait lab to exploit the Rocket Man Bad hype.
Yes, there are many tools to get company under control, but US Government is not shy about doing forcing the change of control for the sake of national interests.
Example:
> The U.S. government has requested that Max Polyakov, a wealthy Ukrainian tech entrepreneur, sell his stake in the rocket company Firefly Aerospace Inc., citing national security concerns.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-29/firefly-o...
Book: "How Heavens Went On Sale" by Ashlee Vans talks in details about the raise of commercial space in recent years and ways government deals with the corresponding issues.
Example:
> The U.S. government has requested that Max Polyakov, a wealthy Ukrainian tech entrepreneur, sell his stake in the rocket company Firefly Aerospace Inc., citing national security concerns.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-29/firefly-o...
Book: "How Heavens Went On Sale" by Ashlee Vans talks in details about the raise of commercial space in recent years and ways government deals with the corresponding issues.
> US Government is not shy about doing forcing the change of control
... when the problem is the nationality of the owners (ala Firefly). That's not an issue here. It's also not the same thing as "nationalizing," btw.
Nationalizing SpaceX remains firmly in the realm of (hate fueled) fantasy.
... when the problem is the nationality of the owners (ala Firefly). That's not an issue here. It's also not the same thing as "nationalizing," btw.
Nationalizing SpaceX remains firmly in the realm of (hate fueled) fantasy.
Momentus (YC S18) founder/CEO Mikhail Kokorich eventually wasn't even allowed to look at his own company's technology and was forced to sell his stake in another space company, despite living in the US. So now he's in Switzerland which has a much more favorable environment. Subjecting "technical data" to export controls produces ridiculous outcomes!
The fact something is fantasy today doesn’t mean it won’t happen - as recent years have shown.
Elon is actively working against his own PR. Fantasies like this one are one of the consequences.
Elon is actively working against his own PR. Fantasies like this one are one of the consequences.
this and capability to launch ICBMs that return the launchers!
I sometimes speculate on what some weapon designer has up on their whiteboard using an F9 booster as a weapons platform. What is the range of a Tomahawk launched at 80,000' and Mach 3? Or a cluster of 9? Kind of scary when you think about it.
Tomahawks have air breathing turbojets that wouldn't function at 80k feet nor at speeds much above 5-600 mph. They're also not stealthy - they're designed to fly low to evade detection, and have conventional warheads. IMO, SpaceX rockets don't really have,any advantage for delivery of ordinance vs existing systems, and using them for attacks in anything less than a full on world war just makes every civilian launch into a potential flashpoint for war.
4) No they won't, because having this available is actually good for them.
The bandwidth you can get from satellite to a handset with a tiny antenna is puny. Everyone is going to want to have a proper data plan instead. But having this as fallback means that you can get some baseline service anywhere (outdoors). And this will actually be amazing for the existing operators, because many of them have service availability requirements for emergency operation, and they have to spend a lot of money maintaining cell towers with no users in remote locations. Starlink as a backstop means they can tear those down.
The bandwidth you can get from satellite to a handset with a tiny antenna is puny. Everyone is going to want to have a proper data plan instead. But having this as fallback means that you can get some baseline service anywhere (outdoors). And this will actually be amazing for the existing operators, because many of them have service availability requirements for emergency operation, and they have to spend a lot of money maintaining cell towers with no users in remote locations. Starlink as a backstop means they can tear those down.
Companies will only want something if they can profit from it, governments: if they can control it
[deleted]
Really interesting points. About this one:
> Phone providers (Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, Etc.) who are still paying off huge debt for the billions they paid for cellular spectrum in various regions will mount a political attack on the effort. I expect submarine campaigns suggesting that Starlink defrauded the FCC with its original spectrum licensing requests etc.
Didn't TMobile work with Starlink on a product that covers the entire US? How would they be against this?
> Phone providers (Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, Etc.) who are still paying off huge debt for the billions they paid for cellular spectrum in various regions will mount a political attack on the effort. I expect submarine campaigns suggesting that Starlink defrauded the FCC with its original spectrum licensing requests etc.
Didn't TMobile work with Starlink on a product that covers the entire US? How would they be against this?
Yes, T-mobile was part of their announcement. The only similar situation I can relate it to from my personal experience were the co-operation with Google and Facebook by Newspapers to get engagement only to have the newspapers feel like they had been duped and turning on their former partners.
As the player's get squeezed it is going to get ugly, it always does.
As the player's get squeezed it is going to get ugly, it always does.
> The radio aspects are straight forward. (...) People have had Iridium satphones from even in the last century
Sorry, but this whole thing is about your regular mobile phone transmitting a signal to a satellite, which was NOT designed to do that. To call this "straightforward" sounds a bit of an oversimplification to me.
Sorry, but this whole thing is about your regular mobile phone transmitting a signal to a satellite, which was NOT designed to do that. To call this "straightforward" sounds a bit of an oversimplification to me.
Disclosure here, I know a lot about radio, less about the implementation in current mobile handsets.
Mobile handset signals reach space. There are satellites in orbit that, amongst other things, look for them. It is just one of the ways an agency with space assets can use them to surveil places.
Mobile handsets are programmed with a certain expectation about how cell towers will present themselves to the phone (I know this from working with early Android builds inside Google). They make choices about which tower to use on a moment by moment basis. They also have code that tries to keep them from "annoying" cell towers when people forget to switch them off on planes. Basically heuristics around how often cell towers are showing up, what is their signal level, how is it changing over time, what's my GPS altitude and velocity, etc.
My understanding from an engineer who worked at Qualcomm with T-mobile on their Starlink demonstration[1] (the modem stuff mostly) was that primarily the changes were around cell tower policy not around changes in the signal. (yes, the radio was updated to tune to Starlink's uplink/downlink frequencies as a possible cell tower). His summary was the effort was zero hardware changes, just updates to the software on the phone modem/radio and the Starlink hardware in space.
If there are HW changes that will make it work better, I expect we will see phones marketed as "satellite ready!" in the future. Apple has already started doing some of that with the iPhone.
[1] I met this guy at a swap meet selling test equipment so I could not swear to his bonafides but he certainly understood the radio concepts.
Mobile handset signals reach space. There are satellites in orbit that, amongst other things, look for them. It is just one of the ways an agency with space assets can use them to surveil places.
Mobile handsets are programmed with a certain expectation about how cell towers will present themselves to the phone (I know this from working with early Android builds inside Google). They make choices about which tower to use on a moment by moment basis. They also have code that tries to keep them from "annoying" cell towers when people forget to switch them off on planes. Basically heuristics around how often cell towers are showing up, what is their signal level, how is it changing over time, what's my GPS altitude and velocity, etc.
My understanding from an engineer who worked at Qualcomm with T-mobile on their Starlink demonstration[1] (the modem stuff mostly) was that primarily the changes were around cell tower policy not around changes in the signal. (yes, the radio was updated to tune to Starlink's uplink/downlink frequencies as a possible cell tower). His summary was the effort was zero hardware changes, just updates to the software on the phone modem/radio and the Starlink hardware in space.
If there are HW changes that will make it work better, I expect we will see phones marketed as "satellite ready!" in the future. Apple has already started doing some of that with the iPhone.
[1] I met this guy at a swap meet selling test equipment so I could not swear to his bonafides but he certainly understood the radio concepts.
Thank you, very insightful.
1) Starlink has only "gone rogue" in Iran; they're following local laws in all other countries. I assume Elon really really does not want to get nationalized and he should be smart enough to know who he can't mess with.
If a communication technology is banned by a country and you circumvent the ban you better be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you don't believe me, fly to India with a satellite phone and turn it on after you land.
It's a fair point. My impression is that people who are willfully circumventing communication infrastructure restrictions put in place by the government understand there are risks. Even things like circumventing the firewall in China for example. The geopolitical risk is that someone can circumvent and the government will typically go after the company that provides that capability (or the country where that company is headquartered).
It is much easier to locate someone (physically) transmitting RF signals illegally than someone using a VPN illegally.
Please finish the story, what would happen?
> fly to India with a satellite phone and turn it on after you land.
I'm going to rankly speculate you don't know what happens, because if you did it would have been to juicy too withhold.
Or, if I'm wrong-- what in the world are you doing refraining from just saying what happens? Give us the link! I can Google and see they are banned, but I guarantee nearly nobody reading this knows what would actually happen by just turning one on when on Indian soil.
I'm going to rankly speculate you don't know what happens, because if you did it would have been to juicy too withhold.
Or, if I'm wrong-- what in the world are you doing refraining from just saying what happens? Give us the link! I can Google and see they are banned, but I guarantee nearly nobody reading this knows what would actually happen by just turning one on when on Indian soil.
Not the person you're replying to, but google tells me that some British oil executive was arrested for this a year ago
https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/25/india-british-oil-exec-jailed...
https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/25/india-british-oil-exec-jailed...
>fly to India with a satellite phone and turn it on after you land.
You'll be fine, there's no active enforcement.
Sure, if you're caught infiltrating a secure area or something, you're in trouble.
You'll be fine, there's no active enforcement.
Sure, if you're caught infiltrating a secure area or something, you're in trouble.
Nope. Triangulated and arrested within minutes.
You are claiming the Indian government (known for its efficiency) has 24/7 monitoring threwout the subcontinent and has the necessary communication line internal to deploy local police assets to your position in just a few minutes?
I believe that when I see it.
I believe that when I see it.
Do you have any evidence for this?
It is fairly common to use unregistered satellite phones for traveling in the Himalayas.
But my experience might be 3-4 years out of date. Are they cracking down more recently?
It is fairly common to use unregistered satellite phones for traveling in the Himalayas.
But my experience might be 3-4 years out of date. Are they cracking down more recently?
> or denying service to an ally the US is trying to assist
Its amazing that Musk and SpaceX delivered Starlink to Ukraine in record time and for unbeatable price while taking loses. And despite that still get shit on for 'denying' things to Ukraine. What an unbelievable spin has been achieved here, its almost Trumpian.
> My hunch is that if Elon keeps pushing it this direction it will be nationalized in order to bring it under government control.
If Elon keeps providing amazing service to US allies?
This being nationalized would be basically a total reverse of US policy that it currently has. Their policy is literally to relay on MORE private suppliers. And they are also doing some of their own in addition.
Its amazing that Musk and SpaceX delivered Starlink to Ukraine in record time and for unbeatable price while taking loses. And despite that still get shit on for 'denying' things to Ukraine. What an unbelievable spin has been achieved here, its almost Trumpian.
> My hunch is that if Elon keeps pushing it this direction it will be nationalized in order to bring it under government control.
If Elon keeps providing amazing service to US allies?
This being nationalized would be basically a total reverse of US policy that it currently has. Their policy is literally to relay on MORE private suppliers. And they are also doing some of their own in addition.
Nation-states usurp control from citizens.
You got it very wrong.
You got it very wrong.
I had a conversation with a friend the other day about how our kids will likely grow up in a world where there is always cell phone service.
I didn't think it would actually happen this quickly since I thought it would take some time to scale down the starlink receivers to fit into cell phones.
Turns out they can just do regular ol' LTE right from the satellites and they're close enough for phones to connect?
I didn't think it would actually happen this quickly since I thought it would take some time to scale down the starlink receivers to fit into cell phones.
Turns out they can just do regular ol' LTE right from the satellites and they're close enough for phones to connect?
Yes agreed, this is unbelievably faster than I expected. Starlink is absolutely killing it.
Although one important caveat is that it will work wherever you can see the sky. So there will still be some dead areas where ground towers and starlink can't reach (though of course that's probably a very small portion, like maybe 5%). But, that seems like a very tractable problem, so I'm sure there will be a solution in short order for those situations. The future is rampaging forward!
Although one important caveat is that it will work wherever you can see the sky. So there will still be some dead areas where ground towers and starlink can't reach (though of course that's probably a very small portion, like maybe 5%). But, that seems like a very tractable problem, so I'm sure there will be a solution in short order for those situations. The future is rampaging forward!
>our kids will likely grow up in a world where there is always cell phone service.
To be honest, I think this is already the case for many Europeans, as there is almost always coverage.
To be honest, I think this is already the case for many Europeans, as there is almost always coverage.
At least in germany this isn't the case. The cell coverage on trains is almost a meme by now (even though it's overstated) and and small communities/other attractions in very rural areas (rural for germany, a highway is still usually <50km away) often have very marginal to no cell coverage.
here in the States, the only time I've been without >=LTE cell service in the last few months was on a plane (in the air), and in the depths of NYC subways.
I take my vacations in the northwoods and barely get signal there. Lots of trees and no mountains to park a tower on. The cabin has a landline because you aren't gonna call 911 otherwise.
There's also some hilly terrain in northeast iowa where you just can't keep a phone call unless you stop your car. The second you crest the peak you lose line of sight.
There's also some hilly terrain in northeast iowa where you just can't keep a phone call unless you stop your car. The second you crest the peak you lose line of sight.
Tokyo and Seoul both have massive subways system but unlike NYC they seem to have figured out how to give you service even in the tunnels. (Mercifully though all NYC stations at least have service)
Here in Italy I also have full signal in the metro (at least the ones I have been), no idea how.
I have parts of my road (in the US) that can’t get any signal.
Yeah, I don't understand how this works. My understanding was that mobile phone signals naturally did not travel very far because of the spectrum they used, but maybe that is greatly extended for low bandwidth will LoS instead of ground obstructions.
I wonder what it means for tracking a phone by tower pings.
I wonder what it means for tracking a phone by tower pings.
> My understanding was that mobile phone signals naturally did not travel very far because of the spectrum they used
That's more about not going through trees etc. If you have a line of sight to a cell tower, what keeps you from connecting is mostly the radio trying to be polite and choosing not to talk to a cell tower that's more than some max time delay away. I assume for this they'll tweak the settings, and satellites are good for line of sight.
That's more about not going through trees etc. If you have a line of sight to a cell tower, what keeps you from connecting is mostly the radio trying to be polite and choosing not to talk to a cell tower that's more than some max time delay away. I assume for this they'll tweak the settings, and satellites are good for line of sight.
Some mobile bands are as low as 600 MHz, which propagates quite well. The reason mobile phone signals don't travel so far are usually ground obstructions (including the horizon) and a relatively weak max power output (23 dBm probably? At least that's what the modems we use in our private LTE network in Greenland do...)
The max power output is regulatory, but also for power reasons.
The max power output is regulatory, but also for power reasons.
Damn as much as I find Musk annoying he is making 10x the impact on the world even in contrast to other CEO/tech magnates. Why can nobody else keep up?
If you listen to the people who have worked closely with him from SpaceX[1], themselves heavy hitters in space industry which is a heavy hitting industry full of ridiculously smart people, it's clear he is simply on another planet. He might not be the world's most knowledgeable person about rocket engine design, but he's up there, and he's up there on every facet of the engineering of an unbelievably complex machine. And manufacturing, and modeling, industrial design, physics, electrical engineering, analytics, software engineering, and many, many related disciplines.
And he has a vision beyond what anyone else can see. He makes bold moves that don't always pay off, but do more often than not
He's simply a monster. That's why no-one else can keep up
I think it's a real shame how he represents himself in public, and how the public sees him
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/eviden...
And he has a vision beyond what anyone else can see. He makes bold moves that don't always pay off, but do more often than not
He's simply a monster. That's why no-one else can keep up
I think it's a real shame how he represents himself in public, and how the public sees him
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/eviden...
I think that putting low value on what other's think is one of the aspects that makes him so successful.
If he gave more credence to popular/public opinion, he would never have started a rocket company, car company, nor would have made some of the seemingly crazy (but ultimately successful) design choices that people said were insane.
If he gave more credence to popular/public opinion, he would never have started a rocket company, car company, nor would have made some of the seemingly crazy (but ultimately successful) design choices that people said were insane.
This is the Occam's razor explanation for his success imo, makes more sense than him being the most successful fraud in human history
> it's clear he is simply on another planet
... or as some figure, trying to build up enough tech here to get back to it :)
... or as some figure, trying to build up enough tech here to get back to it :)
He's one of the few (co)founder-CEOs left in big corps. The market is less about growth and more about profits than it used to be. Also, the companies he cofounded aren't really tech. Auto and space industries were a lot less played out than tech.
A lot of credit also goes to the many engineers and other employees dedicated to making such a product possible as well.
That's true, and something I think about. If SpaceX didn't exist, would the engineering talent that worked there from 2003 until now have made equivalent net contributions to other space companies that would have led us to the position we are now? Is being a good CEO just taking the better share of workers who would have made the same contribution anywhere, or was there something specific about the management/organization/vision at Elon's companies that lead to a higher outcome/worker than would be expected otherwise?
I don't think talented engineers are some fungible asset, if they didn't put 1,000 engineering points into SpaceX, I don't think it's necessarily true that they'd have distributed those 1,000 engineering points elsewhere.
Not specific to SpaceX, but there's definitely a 'force multiplier' for having the correct environment (managers, organization, compensation, resources, etc) to build things larger than the sum of their parts.
Not specific to SpaceX, but there's definitely a 'force multiplier' for having the correct environment (managers, organization, compensation, resources, etc) to build things larger than the sum of their parts.
I'm sure "old-tech" space companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin have great engineering talent, but their management and business structure prevents them from taking the kinds of risks that SpaceX has. I give credit to Musk for letting talented people do the kinds of things that would get shut down immediately at the other places.
Leadership makes the difference between engineers working with each other, or working against. And while good engineers are rare enough to demand decently high pay, good leaders (who tend to have an engineering background as well) are far rarer.
> net contributions to other space companies that would have led us to the position we are now
No we wouldn't be anywhere close to it. I fact we would be, much, much, much worse off.
Simply factually speaking, neither ULA, Arianespace or Russia were actually innovating. The chance that any rocket like Falcon 9 existed without SpaceX is essentially 0%. Many of the young engineers at SpaceX would have simply been stuck in the bloated companies that were not innovating.
Tom Mueller himself is also a good example. He was basically the best engine guy on the planet, but he was at TRW and despite being technically better in many cases, lobbying didn't allow to get many contracts.
We can talk about the rest of the leadership, many like Hans Königsman were working at a rocket startup that had very limited chance of every becoming even a modest success.
We can also see it in the simple efficiency of these companies, and their capability to waste talent. Consider that the complete Falcon program, including engine upgrades, re-usability, human-rating, Falcon Heavy and all the 1000s of upgrades likely cost somewhere in the order of 3-4 billion $.
Now consider that the Ariane 6, a minimal upgrade over the Ariane 5 that mostly consists of reusing developments already done for Ariane 5 ME is gone end up costing 5+ billion $.
So if all these engineers were not at SpaceX the industry would simply be smaller, many working on cars or whatever. And those that were in the industry would be working on low impact projects that waste lots of government money.
> Is being a good CEO just taking the better share of workers who would have made the same contribution anywhere
SpaceX relied on leadership from young engineers who would have been responsible for managing like 1 screw on F-35 instead.
The idea that these people would have anywhere close to the same impact if not for SpaceX just doesn't hold up to even minimal investigation.
> or was there something specific about the management/organization/vision at Elon's companies that lead to a higher outcome/worker than would be expected otherwise?
I don't think anybody that looks at the space industry before SpaceX could realistically come to the conclusion that SpaceX was compelte step change for space flight. The largest one arguably since the R-7.
And that's just SpaceX itself, the New Space industry that got inspired and funded largely based on SpaceX success is gigantic. The amount of private investment between 2010-now is incomparably larger then in any other time. And guess what, many of these young engineers from SpaceX are in leadership position in all of these companies. So SpaceX kind of acted like a seed to expand the whole industry.
I think human history has shown over and over in many domains that leadership, vision and strategy are absolutely vital to achieve difficult goals.
No we wouldn't be anywhere close to it. I fact we would be, much, much, much worse off.
Simply factually speaking, neither ULA, Arianespace or Russia were actually innovating. The chance that any rocket like Falcon 9 existed without SpaceX is essentially 0%. Many of the young engineers at SpaceX would have simply been stuck in the bloated companies that were not innovating.
Tom Mueller himself is also a good example. He was basically the best engine guy on the planet, but he was at TRW and despite being technically better in many cases, lobbying didn't allow to get many contracts.
We can talk about the rest of the leadership, many like Hans Königsman were working at a rocket startup that had very limited chance of every becoming even a modest success.
We can also see it in the simple efficiency of these companies, and their capability to waste talent. Consider that the complete Falcon program, including engine upgrades, re-usability, human-rating, Falcon Heavy and all the 1000s of upgrades likely cost somewhere in the order of 3-4 billion $.
Now consider that the Ariane 6, a minimal upgrade over the Ariane 5 that mostly consists of reusing developments already done for Ariane 5 ME is gone end up costing 5+ billion $.
So if all these engineers were not at SpaceX the industry would simply be smaller, many working on cars or whatever. And those that were in the industry would be working on low impact projects that waste lots of government money.
> Is being a good CEO just taking the better share of workers who would have made the same contribution anywhere
SpaceX relied on leadership from young engineers who would have been responsible for managing like 1 screw on F-35 instead.
The idea that these people would have anywhere close to the same impact if not for SpaceX just doesn't hold up to even minimal investigation.
> or was there something specific about the management/organization/vision at Elon's companies that lead to a higher outcome/worker than would be expected otherwise?
I don't think anybody that looks at the space industry before SpaceX could realistically come to the conclusion that SpaceX was compelte step change for space flight. The largest one arguably since the R-7.
And that's just SpaceX itself, the New Space industry that got inspired and funded largely based on SpaceX success is gigantic. The amount of private investment between 2010-now is incomparably larger then in any other time. And guess what, many of these young engineers from SpaceX are in leadership position in all of these companies. So SpaceX kind of acted like a seed to expand the whole industry.
I think human history has shown over and over in many domains that leadership, vision and strategy are absolutely vital to achieve difficult goals.
[deleted]
Probably because in order to make those sorts of 10x impacts he's doing... He's pushing the boundaries of whats legal, ethical and/or moral. Yes, some of it is simply his ability to "think different" and be willing to work outside the box. Sometimes those boxes are fully ok to break, sometimes those boxes are legal or ethical standards that he also breaks with vigor.
Also a lot of the things he does is not 10x. Look at twitter. He's turned it from the worlds town square to a square filled with a bunch of white dudes in pointy white hats.
Also a lot of the things he does is not 10x. Look at twitter. He's turned it from the worlds town square to a square filled with a bunch of white dudes in pointy white hats.
Wow, but muh Twitter and everyone I don't like is in the KKK! Every single time. You need to get a new thing to be outraged about. Let's stay on topic here and not try to start a flame war.
> filled with a bunch of white dudes in pointy white hats
Huh? Are we using the same Twitter?
Huh? Are we using the same Twitter?
That’s a bit of a straw man regarding twitter. Could easily discuss the mass left-wing censorship happening before, and now a different problem cropped up that Musk is trying to resolve.
I think if he rolls out the $1 per year to post we’ll see a dramatic drop in bot activity.
I think if he rolls out the $1 per year to post we’ll see a dramatic drop in bot activity.
I was under the impression that Starlink satellites were Ku/Ka band (and E-band, apparently) according to Wikipedia.
Isn’t LTE in L-/S-band? Is the plan to launch new satellites that also have LTE band or do previously launched satellites have a previously unknown LTE band subsystem?
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink
Edit: Guess I should have looked a little harder. Here’s a reference to the Gen2 satellites with LTE
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/341576-spacex-asks-fcc-t...
Isn’t LTE in L-/S-band? Is the plan to launch new satellites that also have LTE band or do previously launched satellites have a previously unknown LTE band subsystem?
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink
Edit: Guess I should have looked a little harder. Here’s a reference to the Gen2 satellites with LTE
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/341576-spacex-asks-fcc-t...
I know nothing about RF, can anyone comment on the technical challenges in making this possible? I always thought that you needed special antennas to communicate with satellites, how can a phone do it with no special hardware?
In SATCOM, the link budget determines everything. In the link budget equation is the gain of both the receive and transmit antenna. If your phone antenna has a small gain (for a cell phone, you can consider it 0dB gain), then it has to be made up somewhere, and in this case it's on the satellite. The newer Starlink satellites have higher gain antennas for this use case. Despite this, the throughput is still quite low. The link budget equation results typically in a CNR value which provides you a budget for actual bandwidth/throughput. With a 0 gain ground antenna, there is only so much a small form factor satellite antenna can make up for. The satellite antennas also are phased array antennas which allow for beam steering which is another key technology here. As the satellite rapidly moves over the land it has to be able to maintain high gain in the direction it needs. A fixed antenna would either have a high gain in a single direction requiring lots more satellites for full coverage or wide beamwidths resulting in lower antenna gains and overall lower bandwidth/throughput, potentially to the point of uselessness.
TLDR: Bigger antennas on satellite.
TLDR: Bigger antennas on satellite.
And if you look at AST SpaceMobile plans. Its exactly that, much bigger sats with bigger antennas.
A traditional geosynchronous satellite is 22,000 miles above you. A starlink satellite is only 340 miles above you. And when you are outside you have a great line of sight with nothing in the way.
And your regular cell tower is within a few miles of your mobile at most. A few hundred meters in most cases. The phone is transmitting a few watts tops. I am very skeptical of them promising anything other than very-very low bandwith data, but I would love to hear from someone who actually knows about this stuff.
I make voice contacts with folks via the ISS repeater using a 5W radio and an omnidirectional antenna. It's much easier if you have an antenna with better directional gain, but it's definitely possible.
I'm assuming the Starlink satellites have higher gain antennas than the ISS's amateur radio setup, and they definitely have better coverage than the single space station. :)
I'm assuming the Starlink satellites have higher gain antennas than the ISS's amateur radio setup, and they definitely have better coverage than the single space station. :)
At first I was skeptical that other satellite phone companies would use geosynchronous satellites but I looked up https://www.inmarsat.com/en/about/technology/satellites.html
and sure enough they do
Still, you're going to require a bit of energy to push your radio signal even 340 miles through the atmosphere...
It is always a tradeoff between speed and necessary transmitting power. If you only need to transmit a small amount of data and don’t care if it takes very long, there are ways to spread out the data for it to be still receivable by the satellite. This is called channel coding.
This, combined with improvements in antenna design makes it possible to send data to satellites from phones (receiving data is pretty easy, see gps receivers). That said, it will take a long time for you to be able to have high speed satellite internet on your phone.
This, combined with improvements in antenna design makes it possible to send data to satellites from phones (receiving data is pretty easy, see gps receivers). That said, it will take a long time for you to be able to have high speed satellite internet on your phone.
Any thoughts on AST SpaceMobile? It seems to be ahead of the game with regard to technology but obviously not scale relative to Starlink.
https://www.satellitetoday.com/5g/2023/09/19/ast-spacemobile...
https://www.satellitetoday.com/5g/2023/09/19/ast-spacemobile...
If you check out their hardware[0,1] — and especially their upcoming hardware[2] — you quickly realize that it's AST SpaceMobile who will be "ruining the night sky for all humanity," not Starlink.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/2/23899530/satellite-night-...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/0...
[2] https://spacenews.com/ast-spacemobile-discloses-further-sate...
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/2/23899530/satellite-night-...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/0...
[2] https://spacenews.com/ast-spacemobile-discloses-further-sate...
With all the focus on Starlink, SpaceX has been about the best behaved anybody could expect from a constellation. Other constellations will be far worse. OneWeb for example is much, much worse for issues around space debris. The list goes on. Many companies less in the public eye won't care nearly as much as SpaceX.
Love this feature.
At least my trips to mountains would be more safe as I will be always reach for help when needed.
Being able to call and chat with your friends and family, while you are climbing big wall and sleep on the portable ledges would be really cool as well.
At least my trips to mountains would be more safe as I will be always reach for help when needed.
Being able to call and chat with your friends and family, while you are climbing big wall and sleep on the portable ledges would be really cool as well.
Would be nice. I pay for an InReach subscription as it is.
Interesting, I wonder how much power the satellites will need to emit, orbit is ~550km vs maybe 50-60km for typical LTE tower. And the other direction will probably be harder as phones can't just emit harder than they were built for, so that means much more sensitive receivers on orbit.
The idea is amazing but I'm skeptical on technicalities.
The idea is amazing but I'm skeptical on technicalities.
Musk really is the comic book villain that you end up realizing might have a point.
I don't like his approach necessarily, but am thankful that he and his companies exist.
I don't like his approach necessarily, but am thankful that he and his companies exist.
In the US, this could be the ultimate roaming service for MVNOs like Google Fi which can switch to many different networks.
Starlink is partnering with T-Mobile for this, and Fi uses T-Mobile.
For now they are exclusively working with TMobile. Not sure if that extends to Fi since they use TM towers.
[deleted]
Modern warfare would be an FPV drone attached to a phone with a Starlink subscription and a mortal shell.
When you're very rural, news like this is wonderful. Hope it works out.
Would this mean that an emergency call would be available anywhere without a service contract, at least in the US? As it is now, if I were to dial 911, any tower that can connect must accept and route the call. For example, if my Verizon phone can only see AT&T towers the phone would show no bars but still says emergency calling only.
I doubt it, at least initially. 911 calling is part of the licensing for cellular carriers, but Starlink isn't a cellular carrier. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out from a legal and regulatory point of view.
It looks like this will only be available in a few countries to start, but what would the implications be for censorship resistance if this were to be available in countries with significant internet censorship?
Is anyone familiar enough with the underlying technology to know if countries would be able to identify individual users or jam the signal easily?
My understanding is the main bottleneck for using Starlink for something like this today, besides the company's willingness to do so, is that the terminals are needed to use the network.
Is anyone familiar enough with the underlying technology to know if countries would be able to identify individual users or jam the signal easily?
My understanding is the main bottleneck for using Starlink for something like this today, besides the company's willingness to do so, is that the terminals are needed to use the network.
You might find this[1] interesting. There has been some talk of Starlink providing internet access for aid groups in Palastine.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/musk-says-starlink...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/musk-says-starlink...
Well, radio is light in a different frequency, so any time you broadcast a radio signal anyone that can see said light can tell where you are. If there's any differentiating characteristics in the signal sent to these satellites vs regular cell towers it can be detected and the location of use easily identified.
Apart from providing service where previously there may have been none available, is the real value to Starlink that they get user-data on who is using their service and what sites they're accessing? The same way a DNS provider can build a profile of its users based on the DNS record lookups -- or an ISP or VPN service can do the same.
Don't we run the risk of Starlink becoming the only player providing this type of global service/access -- and leveraging the information collected from this business for use with advertising or to resell in ways that may not be in the best interest of the subscribers?
Don't we run the risk of Starlink becoming the only player providing this type of global service/access -- and leveraging the information collected from this business for use with advertising or to resell in ways that may not be in the best interest of the subscribers?
There's no difference between Starlink providing this service and any other ISP. Why didn't you ask what the value is for T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, or Comcast?
Nearly every app, website, phone service, credit union, IoT device is harvesting our data and selling it to the highest bidder with no regard for ethics and privacy -- but you're concerned that Starlink will resell subscriber data.
Starlink is not only providing service where none was available. In many cases, it's providing service in rural areas for a fraction of the cost of other providers who were exploiting people with no other option.
Most importantly, in an age where governments and corporations (including the US) have been working together to censor views that don't align with the current agenda -- increasing services and products that could be censorship-resistant is something that should be applauded -- not shamed.
Nearly every app, website, phone service, credit union, IoT device is harvesting our data and selling it to the highest bidder with no regard for ethics and privacy -- but you're concerned that Starlink will resell subscriber data.
Starlink is not only providing service where none was available. In many cases, it's providing service in rural areas for a fraction of the cost of other providers who were exploiting people with no other option.
Most importantly, in an age where governments and corporations (including the US) have been working together to censor views that don't align with the current agenda -- increasing services and products that could be censorship-resistant is something that should be applauded -- not shamed.
What would be the difference to any other ISP / why do you single out Starlink? It seems that if you don't want them to get some information, you can use a VPN provider just like with any other ISP.
Or did I misunderstand you?
Or did I misunderstand you?
1) Starlink usurps nation-state controls, period. Whether it is enabling service when the local government doesn't want it, or denying service to an ally the US is trying to assist. My hunch is that if Elon keeps pushing it this direction it will be nationalized in order to bring it under government control.
2) The radio aspects are straight forward. As others have mentioned the satellites are just 340 miles away which is about 150 miles closer to earth than Iridium satellites. People have had Iridium satphones from even in the last century :-). Data bandwidth is better with Starlink and satellite to satellite links look like they will work.
3) Starlink is very difficult to jam (ask the Russians). The reason is that the comms are up/down versus side to side so jamming horizontally (typical) has no effect. That said, there are mixed reports of "ddos" jamming which is to say putting a bunch of ground terminals together to suck down bandwidth. As SpaceX retains the capacity to disable individual ground terminals at will this can be manually managed so it is a stop gap effort at best. Serious jamming efforts will probably be devised (a phased array antenna with a decent microwave power amplifier could probably "blind" all of the satellites in 'view') but that will take a while to happen.
4) Phone providers (Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, Etc.) who are still paying off huge debt for the billions they paid for cellular spectrum in various regions will mount a political attack on the effort. I expect submarine campaigns suggesting that Starlink "defrauded" the FCC with its original spectrum licensing requests etc. Random prediction here is that SpaceX ends up making some big payout to spectrum holders to offset the "lost value" of their spectrum investment.
5) And finally, it isn't particularly useful if you are inside. And very much not useful in tunnels/subways etc. We might see a reversion to an old cell concept where the antenna is on your car and your car is your own personal cell tower for your phone. Would not be surprised at that. Also existing cell providers have supported relays in subterranean spaces for a while and I would not be surprised to see SpaceX join them in doing that.