From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3BE63B29E for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 04:46:16 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1645523168; bh=I625XYygYDrquDQ3/CcgMc/XyyV/IJtTASg8kMGrC3c=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Bmt3e4/uUFL5guu0NuR7uCqQBIhM913Y7QHNqL9+dfwELQkXqZt3bwd1BLeHYJ626 rpjdRlb6pcoNbsSuU557V64RIYhb+5sf0Mh+c1x9Ibu/fOgm63p2+Mk7ejO4R19wB3 6qCyaFKQ1PRBRCKLT0MZB1ZIBfdK6xfj+DrTv/qM= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N7zBb-1oILkh0K2d-0154KG; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:46:08 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <0ecefa3c-da5c-48c6-b60d-e2e121d1319c@Spark> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:46:07 +0100 Cc: Daniel AJ Sokolov , David Lang , dickroy@alum.mit.edu, starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <282F58AF-C9A9-4438-AB82-34C717384DBE@gmx.de> References: <1p492142-q944-r494-6s6r-p6q37s57qnq4@ynat.uz> <1F1EB112F8CB446FAB4BF308A76955FA@SRA6> <0ac195f5-3668-4c96-8dec-8a2d59a0bd52@Spark> <866405-s043-n12n-6pqs-46o38r189218@ynat.uz> <38pr9p5s-3ro4-49p9-9535-7o92oqrq62r1@ynat.uz> <80753e77-f7ba-466f-8222-66c16059f600@Spark> <66B75B7A-82DF-4A92-BC74-CB0422E2BABC@gmx.de> <0ecefa3c-da5c-48c6-b60d-e2e121d1319c@Spark> To: Mike Puchol X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:L3j5m/f5IJKSbrZayaSvgNW0hH31VOXGJ2lB/kKCatOXzbZ7rkQ RelWh9uRLYMt6PqWwEKBnqF4R41o6ILKQh2tjLwjZNaOxLQK8NNqIhLUfmaDlWs3myki9m/ gFKikzTLvRFcM8/ASiyThXAe5D0Vr6VMQl8dv1lqHMUy0qwFDvLdBp5tTz2LRmVjR2hglNc yGHSqrHdAjxaCqmWXTz4w== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:mG5KY+53uvk=:KrlAx7fRmCldkplFE4zlVu pYyvd37us0BnPoevJ5NnZUQjr5Qe5MwT1eyvQpZHKw50UfGFSiTePiifDFgLlND5CcWs/pQNH QmONI8swgswOKoa33QeqSviigkTjUeroJqtbcO1XqOil0uMCK4XQqnJ22wA4b7pUyKdFIvRqy wmi7cxFaSxfisF4gUrEMUy7pwLq/M08xlguW8Jto5zPgi0R26eU/bVW5bQIMJNgU7uEghHJt/ 2CTcZyf3yYc0yVR5DekyisyjTE4GcXwT9Y7ls+AFgqfXUeAorHQVtK8rqHDpf9TDFQHMQDeM7 Hq6CvkWpPEh95jvLdUxbvLRzb1qV7vbB+EALckF9ckIDssNna5BNvTmxMQoJtrZOnSL+EgeeA DBv1wm6fIPHeGBSILO/dfeuoL9p4uZ4bRyIv+aOYkSGmKeDQMU+I5mgEiu1nk/74xJCU59CkX nUuFikMcXu8dKRQ9EXI7p8zs+CScrYr5dmbIsYmKMMKB6PKuVCoqWzApYyLmJq+iw3s8EDkdY 2IO28OohaMA7Brv1qzd1f0ce9HNs3U6Ngd9VGKxwTjq1ktm/SaJX65cBm4xfFWalM+OmxVRTX GkaUKSxv9pl65rJlLhjgbNqjIn4MjqV3H8qouUSl3rqW9pSTJBb/lMaCb205OMY76wpcjkgM5 wJwjRn/Sa3ZOQFx1VB/vFwmdSJ/7Fa/TsvX0uOHO7F/qE6DrtxkQ52PcReg/TC/2Jjy3U6Pvd Pb9XTO+mXsMceM78wcw9tJcVwfKOzTNs2dB/ALZB+w/GTV+7VTFAqtLsTYc1SobadSRHjZrtW +Q5WimmcnDMwcTc98Bx6WjIKzH2AD2vc9ZsgHiVpyP5a6XbImzJ0Hsxw2CDreZnIun+eUyzJB kaYfGXiNIw0s565mwgBnQBAG6RRrxzGvEy7NU245i9wqm67jXXHKfT8Y9vr387VWcpcp/s2Nr +239Z1OuILZyP6xdR0h2DynS7GAZBGoC6QvZ0x6dEroIlJr0e/5i2Kmj9iiwVTQnZhuGAuUUZ nfXwmmXFWQXNy32M+9wHSgoAjuWzgFK2usM7/fMXo++mf3kjz8S93/fodjgKjOuRR+LOTfruf kvIraMldkfdIZI= Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:46:17 -0000 > On Feb 22, 2022, at 10:40, Mike Puchol wrote: >=20 > The optical links work in IR spectrum, so non-visible. They would not = be a concern for aircraft the same way green lasers are. Puzzled. IR lasers still wreck havoc when hitting the = eye/retina, so why are these considered safer than visible spectrum = lasers? In a lab context IR lasers are typically considered more = dangerous as they are invisible and hence harder to see/avoid. I am = happy to believe that there is a reason why they are safer, just trying = ot reconcile that with my laser-safety seminar ;) > On David=E2=80=99s comment "but if you can easily route traffic to a = ground station that's further away and not currently saturated=E2=80=9D, = that is true as long as the path that is connected over ISL has = visibility of that other ground station. I will add ISL to my tracker = shortly so we can start simulating these things. >=20 > Best, >=20 > Mike > On Feb 22, 2022, 12:04 +0300, Sebastian Moeller , = wrote: >> Intersting! >>=20 >> Silly question, giving that there are already law suits for people = pointing lasers at airplanes, how are these commercial laster terminals = avoiding that issue? >>=20 >> Regards >> Sebastian >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 08:42, Mike Puchol wrote: >>>=20 >>> I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the = optical gateways, these exist already: = https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capabilities/ >>>=20 >>> Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to = provide it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn=E2=80=99t = enough radio spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gateway = network with enough physical separation). You can create a network of = optical gateways that guarantees a number of them will not be impared by = cloud cover at any given time. Optical has the advantage of being = license-free, too. >>>=20 >>> Best, >>>=20 >>> Mike >>> On Feb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy , = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On = Behalf Of Mike Puchol >>>> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 9:35 PM >>>> To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang >>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If = we take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve = traffic from all UTs that were not previously under coverage. >>>>=20 >>>> A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by = itself. If you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a = single gateway, over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite=E2=80=99= s capacity available (given an equal distribution of demand, of course = there will be satellites with no UTs to cover etc.). >>>>=20 >>>> [RR] I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider = the larger system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof. = What you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful. = Routing through complex congested networks is well-studied problem and = hnts at possible solutions can probably be found thereJ) >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it=E2=80=99s the only = way to get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k = satellite version. >>>>=20 >>>> [RR] What do you mean by =E2=80=9C=E2=80=9Doptical gateway=E2=80=9D? = An optical link from the satellite to the ground station? That would be = real expensive at least power-wise and unreliable. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Best, >>>>=20 >>>> Mike >>>>=20 >>>> On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang , wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded = a >>>> bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming = capabilities in >>>> the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot = more >>>> flexibility) >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-) >>>>=20 >>>> Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but = how >>>> could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many = users? >>>>=20 >>>> The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, = but >>>> they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not = built >>>> thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, = maybe >>>> more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually >>>> connect to a ground station. >>>>=20 >>>> Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a = small >>>> help here and there? >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route = the traffic >>>> from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm = registered with as >>>> opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far = from my >>>> registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station. >>>>=20 >>>> Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage: >>>>=20 >>>> 1. satellite bandwidth >>>> 2. ground station bandwidth >>>>=20 >>>> laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one. >>>>=20 >>>> We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it = currently on Elon's >>>> gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) ) >>>>=20 >>>> David Lang >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Starlink mailing list >>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Starlink mailing list >>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>=20