Is the language carefully chosen to imply it can provide data links for classified satellites? Gene ---------------------------------------------- Eugene Chang IEEE Senior Life Member eugene.chang@ieee.org m 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu) > On Jun 18, 2023, at 10:21 PM, David Fernández via Starlink wrote: > > I followed the link below about Starshield > (https://www.spacex.com/starshield) and it says: > > - Interoperability: Starlink's inter-satellite laser communications > terminal, which is the only communications laser operating at scale in > orbit today, can be integrated onto partner satellites to enable > incorporation into the Starshield network. > > Besides that the EDRS is out there also, at a reduced scale, ok > (https://www.esa.int/Applications/Connectivity_and_Secure_Communications/Relay_system_speeds_vital_data_flow_with_75_000_links), > I was wondering about how the integration of partner satellites into > the Starshield network will work, besides hosting the ISL payload. > > Regards, > > David > >> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:08:59 -0600 >> From: Dave Taht >> To: Tom Beecher >> Cc: Michael Thomas , nanog@nanog.org, Dave Taht via >> Starlink >> Subject: Re: [Starlink] FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate >> Impact of Data Caps >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >> >> I am happy to see the conversation about starlink escaping over here, >> because it is increasingly a game-changing technology (I also run the >> starlink mailing list, cc´d)... >> >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 3:56 PM Tom Beecher wrote: >>>> >>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are the >>>> real economics. >> >> There is a whole other cluster on the drawing boards, called >> Starshield, which you can read about here: >> https://www.spacex.com/starshield/ >> >> The current "retail"economics are limited to US allies as a result of >> the ukraine war showing how important information and bandwidth are to >> modern warfare. There are also political implications to downlinks in >> each country. >> >> I imagine, for example, that India is holding off on licensing until >> Musk gets them a tesla factory. >> >> Multiple other countries are making a huge investment into retaining >> control of the "spacewaves", so there´s that also. >> >>> I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling demand because they >>> still don't have the capacity so it would make sense to overcharge in the >>> mean time. >> >> Throttling demand is not how I would put it. Each cell has a limited >> capacity, so starlink has been running promotions to get more >> subscribers into more rural cells where the capacity exists. >> >> I have kvetched elsewhere about how poorly starlink manages bandwidth >> and bufferbloat currently, but they are largely better than modern day >> 5G and DSL, so... >> >>> Is there something inherent in their cpe that makes them much more >>> expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? >> >> The original cost/dish was about 2k, so they were selling those at >> well below the install price, with a ROI of about 12 months, given >> that figure. I imagine with mass manufacturing the cost/dish has come >> down substantially, and they also charge a realistic price on the >> business quality dish of $2500. It would not surprise me if the basic >> dishy essentially cost less than 500 to manufacture nowadays. >> >> The default wifi router, which many replace, cannot be more than 50 >> dollars on the BOM. >> >>> I can see marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly >>> just software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck >>> roll. >> >> There is no truck roll. They have gone to amazing extants in - put the >> dish in a clear area, power it up, you are on. >> >> Establishing infrastructure, like downlinks, connected near fiber in >> civilization does have a large cost, takes time, and is also subject >> to government regulation. >> >>> >>> - Starlink currently reports around 1.5M subscribers. At $110 a month, >>> that's $165M in revenue, >> >> Creating A 2B dollar/year business in 4 years is quite impressive. A >> reasonable projection would be 10m subs in 4 more years, e.g. >> 10B/year. That aint' chicken scratch. In fact, I think it funds >> humanity´s expansion into the solar system quite handily. >> >>> - A Falcon 9 launch is billed out at $67M. A Falcon 9 can carry up to 60 >>> Starlink sats. That's ~667 launches to reach the stated goal of 40k sats >>> in the constellation. So roughly $45B in just launch costs, if you assume >>> the public launch price. (Because if they are launching their own stuff, >>> they aren't launching an external paying customer.) >> >>> - The reported price per sat is $250k. >> >> There are multiple sat types, the mini v2 (which can only be flown on >> the falcon 9, is rumored to cost about that much) >> >> Starship had had a much larger, much more highly capable sat designed >> for it, but it is running a few years behind schedule. The hope for >> that was that launch costs would decline even further. >> >> Also OPEX - running this network - is probably a substantial cost. I >> have lost track of the number of downlink stations established (over >> 200 now) but I would guess those are about 1m per. >> >> There is a really amazing site that looks at this stuff called starlink.sx. >> >>> >>> Assuming they give themselves a friendly internal discount, the orbital >>> buildout cost are in the neighborhood of $30B for launches, and $10B for >>> sats. >> >> The present day capacity, even if they were to do no more launches, is >> still underused. Roughly half the USA has no starlink service yet, >> multiple countries have been slow to license, and nearly all of Africa >> remains uncovered. Maritime and air are big sources of new business. I >> try to stress it is where people are but infrastructure isn´t is >> where starlink really shines, >> >> and that very little bandwidth is required for things like email and chat. >> >>> >>> - The satellite failure rate is stated to be ~ 3% annually. On a 40K >>> cluster, that's 1200 a year. >> >> Where did you see that? So far as I can tell, the failure rate, >> exclusive of one launch lost to solar expansion, is trending towards >> zero. Also, maneuvering thrust (documented somewhere) has been quite >> under expectations, in terms of operating fuel they could use the >> existing sats for far, far longer than the intended 5 year operational >> lifetime, in this regard. >> >>> >>> That's about 20 more launches a year, and $300M for replacement sats. >>> Let's round off and say that's $1B a year there. >>> >>> So far, that's a $40B buildout with a $1B annual run rate. And that's >>> just the orbital costs. We haven't even calculated the manufacturing costs >>> of the receiver dishes, terrestrial network infra cost , opex from staff , >>> R&D, etc . >>> >>> Numbers kinda speak for themselves here. >>> >>>> I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you will he >>>> does have big ambitions. >>> >>> >>> Ambition is good. But reality tends to win the day. As does math. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 4:38 PM Michael Thomas wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/17/23 1:25 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner >>>>> rather than later? >>>> >>>> >>>> Unlikely. They will remain niche. The economics don't make sense for >>>> those services to completely replace terrestrial only service. >> >> I agree they will not replace terrestrial service, but maritime, >> roaming, airplanes, and rural are big enough markets. >> >>>> >>>> Why would they put up 40000 satellites if their ambition is only niche? I >>>> mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you will he >>>> does have big ambitions. >>>> >>>> From my standpoint, they don't have to completely replace the incumbents. >>>> I'd be perfectly happy just keeping them honest. >>>> >>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are the >>>> real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling >>>> demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would make sense >>>> to overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe >>>> that makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can >>>> see marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly just >>>> software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck roll. >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:17 PM Michael Thomas wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/16/23 1:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote: >>>>>>> Mark, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my world I constantly see people with 0 fixed internet options. >>>>>>> Many of these locations do not even have mobile coverage. >>>>>>> Competition is fine in town, but for millions of people in the US >>>>>>> (and I'm going to assume it's worse or comparable in CA/MX) there is >>>>>>> no service. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a company primarily delivering to residents, competition is not a >>>>>>> focus for us and for the urban market it's tough to survive on a ~1/3 >>>>>>> take rate. >>>>>> >>>>>> I should have been clearer... the lack of competition in many markets >>>>>> is not unique to North America. I'd say all of the world suffers that, >>>>>> since there is only so much money and resources to go around. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I was trying to say is that should a town or village have the >>>>>> opportunity to receive competition, where existing services are >>>>>> capped, uncapping that via an alternative provider would be low >>>>>> hanging fruit to gain local marketshare. Of course, the alternative >>>>>> provider would need to show up first, but that's a whole other thread. >>>>>> >>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner >>>>> rather than later? I don't know if they have caps as well, but even if >>>>> they do they could compete with their caps. >>>>> >>>>> Mike >>>>> >> >> >> -- >> Podcast: >> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7058793910227111937/ >> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink