From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (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 AE1273B29E for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 04:04:03 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1645520634; bh=a1ZLU2aVe1+5o8q7juv23YLzMnB2BkllHCdLlPlifPA=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Ev+LLrQAxcVwCVL7oSEfEVwE3jWUHA9OYRZc0gAgEZPBZqfX5mKzyoaJRMcoG/7+D Gp/qRKTe5sh/bmksOYjfLQRxJrUbOGHkso6LjTXI7KtM+isMwU/f710+TveoQDp/Og YeX0+aakXXhJK+6lAi0Ns9X0zt2L7xhTHxyJk4LY= 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 1MS3il-1npttC3RwB-00TYHm; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:03:53 +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: <80753e77-f7ba-466f-8222-66c16059f600@Spark> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:03:52 +0100 Cc: Daniel AJ Sokolov , David Lang , dickroy@alum.mit.edu, starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <66B75B7A-82DF-4A92-BC74-CB0422E2BABC@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> To: Mike Puchol X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:RGgplJh1i68GG/bU7VZaxCzusNXaiCnvjotJWudeSoaxjEUaSVk 3A7/GMRNZxxYvqYiXfZTdHl6501wzoqx+DIwcwOUhkyunyL7ZTSUS/dtW0ZZ0boJ1/EcbY3 SoSWJLphz4xnZWaXvl3rZfBqiJ5j+iUkJUisDLwrmQ6MR6rmKvKT+Zk2dxW9W6wMiUDeNxO 5ygdcsUKh+Qh8Dt1zaTwQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:aO+JuiJVvxA=:C1GC8NvMPWHIQ8k549eDS8 fzcwgRovs0i/zoTeWGV4JRasbc8MQNc1JTuTPL6JG0vBVHOysSKDItJn4YeFxfqgTRgvwYBIq ez/j+nJY9845+G5aACAtrege2aXuBvw9sww9Z74C9qOj7gAChUd2MHB/c62oK37l52c/G4VuD VENh/SLaR2xS6fYOVcMFr39Cb5/0hEHxfgGQnE/H3YSRklJe3KKaf71QKQ244+mqcAeHWifif 69eKW8CYvihYQVApjWFZhrPvGUH5vt5mN2Ftuj1WVQ1dITmfxaPoFc7x81iHQCKyzgiyttZk0 ecHDFFjIVFVAb5CutTvVGsWXPVDYStKt9fS0ydeQsGjhVpOWf6U9NHUDMhhVJ59Jno5C5KHhi fkYWnPuNwaBh6O0tp8qC+Z3LEotlz2rx42LIq1p/EML1BluHu0draSfA6+M7swUQJqfjgwIcK X4H4Kne3iOamE2y5LX6cM842hWHVruBdp1SRxtLJme8dOUnDkJFPJlHU9ehu1ePSVR6XciCDQ 46wUXkMEEtrAo01pWWRXKS2KaUv+EQXOfksusbQDEx02bZoPz3gcogzTZ5CouF9l4v9j9cZu5 +43DTdz8D9Prl991Vpub23mqiTSd5md3aIZMNyngDUlU8R7wb7Kj2Nsk1vWZ6x40azzBvCVOn ri61DIRG+IRJCbgn6vOsUzyZMz5NGZmcK66bq67zw6pwO1yAVQHOBF5TkPovvcNSYm+TeBeJ8 FX9xP4aYbKD3X9yt9ihEIQsn7Ax9nI6k6qBXDLSmr4mxKbrRfAVc/sn5Wv1NQVZQHfACEer+2 Jgqv8ExjVfzPZyhAz0Asz5iCK1wTmk+MKqMpx9tABMCJBSaDysDjiv07SJhVFscdbJkCHBQPt MNp6x2j0nPQ8Z3ev57UWZE0n1RZBElOu1zAQxmJX8n7zCMZ2P0nz2tx8Iw7YF0E03YpkRuCPI prjmpCRThp8PyG5NAT6vUPUadtiPx7JUK0NOt2NfD0x6+EJWOcxKDIqElGqp2q8FFepmEa5hT Z0bp9j/K3PWJokoELKmUllp128F57n/2uINu1HcVOWYuWgpiO/J0wjnF9vswChEQjMwh2c3kg MyM/IdMlYxVjps= 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 09:04:04 -0000 Intersting! Silly question, giving that there are already law suits for people = pointing lasers at airplanes, how are these commercial laster terminals = avoiding that issue? Regards Sebastian > 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 >>=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=99s = 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