From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (syn-045-059-245-186.biz.spectrum.com [45.59.245.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E26513B29D for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:06:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-mobile (unknown [10.2.3.133]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD0B1D48B4; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 05:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 05:06:16 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang To: Ulrich Speidel cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <8986fa02-3c6a-4d66-9105-979d7e4ef248@auckland.ac.nz> Message-ID: <7023574s-qpso-1661-530n-o15rr9rs7305@ynat.uz> References: <8986fa02-3c6a-4d66-9105-979d7e4ef248@auckland.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="===============0095754299705557065==" Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starship's 4th flight test was magnificent 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: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:06:17 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --===============0095754299705557065== Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Ulrich Speidel wrote: > On 10/06/2024 2:38 pm, David Lang via Starlink wrote: >> >> the V2 were about 8-10x the capacity of the V1.5 (the ones they could >> launch 50-60 per flight), the v2 mini they have been launching (~22/flight) >> are about midway between the two. No recent word on the V2s, but Tim Dodd >> did another starbase visit with Elon before the flight, so watch for that >> to show up soon. > > I think it'd be useful we could agree on what we mean by "capacity" before we > start throwing numbers around, especially relative ones. For Starlink, I can > think of the following capacities (yes, plural): > > * User up-/downlink capacity from/to a single user. (How many bits/s > can I throw at a Dishy?) > * Downlink capacity to all users in a single cell (under the proviso > that we don't have any users in adjacent cells that need / want > service - think small island in the middle of the Pacific). > * Overall user downlink capacity from a single satellite to multiple > cells. (Can't deploy co-frequency beams with identical polarisation > to the same cell if you have multiple such beams on your bird, but > can do so if we can aim them at different cells) > * Gateway uplink capacity (to users served directly by the satellite > or indirectly via ISLs) > * Gateway downlink (from users served directly by the satellite or > indirectly via ISLs) > * Dto. per gateway (see co-frequency beam issue) > * Processing capacity: Number of bits / s that a satellite can pump > between its receive beams / incoming ISLs and transmit beams / > outgoing ISLs. I believe the numbers thrown around are for the total satellite capability, it's not per user or per cell and it includes the in-space laser links. David Lang --===============0095754299705557065== Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: Content-Disposition: INLINE X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KU3Rhcmxpbmsg bWFpbGluZyBsaXN0ClN0YXJsaW5rQGxpc3RzLmJ1ZmZlcmJsb2F0Lm5ldApodHRwczovL2xpc3Rz LmJ1ZmZlcmJsb2F0Lm5ldC9saXN0aW5mby9zdGFybGluawo= --===============0095754299705557065==--