I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the optical gateways, these exist already: https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capabilities/ Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to provide it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn’t 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. Best, Mike On Feb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy , wrote: > > > 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 > > 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. > > 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’s capacity available (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be satellites with no UTs to cover etc.). > [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) > > > Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it’s the only way to get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version. > [RR] What do you mean by “”optical gateway”? An optical link from the satellite to the ground station? That would be real expensive at least power-wise and unreliable. > > Best, > > Mike > On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang , wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote: > > On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote: > > > 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) > > Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-) > > 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? > > 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. > > Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small > help here and there? > > 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. > > Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage: > > 1. satellite bandwidth > 2. ground station bandwidth > > laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one. > > 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 :-) ) > > David Lang > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink