Slashdot Mirror


The First Detailed Look at How Elon Musk's Space Internet Could Work (newscientist.com)

SpaceX has been granted permission by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to set up a vast network of thousands of low Earth orbit communication satellites. But the company has been tight-lipped about the project, known as Starlink. Mark Handley, University College London built a simulator based on public details from the FCC filings to understand the latency properties of the network. New Scientist reports: Although Musk has said he wants more than half of all internet traffic to go through Starlink -- Handley's simulation suggests that the project will be most appealing to high-frequency traders at big banks, who might be willing to fork out large sums for dedicated, faster connections. To create the simulation, Handley took what information he could from SpaceX's public FCC filings and combined this with his knowledge of computer networks. Initially, Starlink will consist of 4425 satellites orbiting between 1100 and 1300 kilometres up, a greater number of active satellites than are currently in orbit. There is only one way to arrange this many in a configuration that minimises collisions, says Handley. So he is confident that his simulation reflects what SpaceX is going for.

When sending an internet message via Starlink, a ground station will begin by using radio waves to talk to a satellite above it. Once in space, the message will be fired from satellite to satellite using lasers until it is above its destination. From there, it will be beamed down to the right ground station using radio waves again. Between distant places, this will allow messages to be sent about twice as fast as through the optical fibres on Earth that currently connect the internet, despite having to travel to space and back. This is because the speed of the signal in glass is slower than it is through space.

22 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. Elon Musk by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Solving the worlds problems, step by step.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or more like building the technological infrastructure needed for a Mars colony, step by step.

    2. Re:Elon Musk by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and making them viable.

      --
      No sig today...
  2. Holey Fiber, [Star]man! by cellocgw · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just dropping by to mention that, while existing fiberoptic networks have index of refraction around 1.7 (so signal speed is c/1.7) , there is a relatively new thing referred to as "holey fiber." It's essentially analogous to microwave hollow guides, with the hole pattern sized to match the TE/TM modes of the injected light. The speed thru these waveguides is close to the vacuum limit.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  3. Shortwave Trading by aaronb1138 · · Score: 4, Informative

    High speed trading looking for a timing edge has already upgraded to shortwave which traverses an even shorter distance (bouncing through the lower atmosphere) right at the speed of light.

    https://sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com/2018/05/07/shortwave-trading-part-i-the-west-chicago-tower-mystery/

    1. Re:Shortwave Trading by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The downside to shortwave is the relatively low amount of available bandwidth. It works for high frequency trading because the amount of data transferred is very small. Another problem is that shortwave is subject to so much atmospheric and solar disturbances. I am a licensed Amateur Extra and I know the fun of sometimes getting long distance contacts and sometimes not.

    2. Re: Shortwave Trading by joao.cordeiro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, one of the ways to profit from fast trading is by predicting the behavior of one stock on one exchange by the behavior of the same stock on another.
      For example: Gold price in New York has a relation with gold price in London. If you see Gold price diving in London. You may want to fast sell gold in New York before it dives too.
      Who ever places this order 1st gets the best result
      This cannot be done without distant trade links where latency matters.

    3. Re: Shortwave Trading by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's amazing the stupid things that drive technological progress.

      Oh well. New tech is new tech.

  4. Re:Haha, this won't last. by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Iridium et al. Just a bunch of space junk now.

    Is it? Iridium's problem was lack of customers who needed the service and had money to pay for it. Prices where so high that few people in areas that didn't have cellular service already could afford to pay the subscription fees. Their business model wasn't viable.

    In this case, there is actually a different business model and possible paying customers who actually have money and a need for internet service. Are there enough of them who have enough money to make this viable? Maybe... Given Musk's access to exceptionally low cost launch rates, this might just work out this time. I'd not bet on it either way myself.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  5. Already out of date.. by Zarquon · · Score: 5, Informative

    SpaceX's revised FCC filing calls for about 1.6k of the initial 4.4k constellation to be at 550km orbit. Brings the minimum latency down to 15ms, instead of 25-35ms.
    https://www.theverge.com/2018/...
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight....

    --
    "'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
    1. Re:Already out of date.. by Zarquon · · Score: 2
      Why do you assume 15ms is a single hop? One way speed of light delay to 550 kilometers is ~2 ms. Satellite will likely not be directly overhead which will add to that, but a 15 ms single-bounce latency seems possible.

      SpaceX has actual data, as the two test satellites have been in roughly that orbit. Worst-case latency will be higher.

      For reference, one way speed of light delay to geostationary is at least 120 ms.

      --
      "'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
  6. Re:Haha, this won't last. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Iridium's problem was...

    Actually, AMONGST Iridium's problems was that it was not designed as a data transport system, and the horrible data capabilities that they offered were based on running a modem over their voice lines.

    Iridium Next will expand those offerings to 128 kb/s to mobile, 1.5 Mb/s to marine and 8 Mb/s to fixed land stations.

    This leaves a lot of room for improvement and Musk might force iridium's hand to provide faster upgrades than their 20 year turn around on iridium to Iridium Next

  7. Apples to Oranges by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Problem is, fiber on the ground is faster as the distance is shorter.

    Only true in general for relatively short trips with fixed destinations.

    Unless you live in some remote place that depends on geo-stationary satellites for internet, you are better off going along the ground, at least where latency is concerned.

    A) These are not geo-stationary satellites SpaceX is proposing. Geostationary orbit is about 35,700km away versus the 1200km being proposed here. That difference is very significant. B) Ground is only faster in some use cases but not all and the longer the transmission the less advantage it has.

    1. Re:Apples to Oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am a network designer, or network architect if you prefer. You are correct. A mesh satellite network which could beat a typical terrestrial link is not possible at this time. The only time Musk's current plan might compete on latency are for links across the pacific. Even then, often the terrestrial lines will win. LEO might be able to provide greater resistance to jitter, but there really is no way to predict that until typical traffic volumes, patters, and types are empirically provided as a test-load.

      Currently the speed Musk insists his satellite network could provide is simply infeasible with current radio technology. He would have to find a way to break the laws of physics or make huge satellites with impressively focused and powerful wireless links in spectrum bandwidth which wont diffuse or be absorbed by the atmosphere. Currently there is no available spectrum in the volumes he would need.

      There are many futurists here and elsewhere, with no background in networking. To try and convince them by any means I have found to be futile.

      My firm has actually run the numbers. For this system to be profitable, the limitations in physics, assuming launch costs are free, the number of people needed based on current market tolerance for price at a given speed, the shared bandwidth will be slow DSL speeds at dial-up ping times. Amazing for distributed IoT. There is a market. But this will never be what Musk insists it will be so long as there is no revolution in our understanding of physics.

  8. Re:How about gamers by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

    The lower latency could be useful for games, too.

    Probably not, because the potential savings scale with distance. Halfway across the world and back is 40000 km/300000 km/s = 133 ms at light speed, at c/1.7 it's 226 ms so at most 93 ms to save. But I wouldn't try to play a twitch game at those ping rates while at reasonable gaming ping times the gains are mostly eaten up by the base latency. Unless you really desperately want to play with your guild from another continent, it's not going to matter much. It mainly matters for HFT where your buy/sell orders arrive a few milliseconds before the competition.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  9. the FCC? Authority? by polar+red · · Score: 2

    Who gave them the authority to do that? They should probably only be allowed to have a say about the airspace above the US.

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    1. Re:the FCC? Authority? by jmichaelg · · Score: 3, Informative

      The FCC only has authority over the U.S. radio spectrum. Now he's got some 200 more approvals to go.

      Iridium did the same thing on a smaller scale back in the 90's when the company was owned by Motorola . The tech was worked out very quickly. It was the politics that slowed them to a crawl. Motorola found out exactly how hard it was to get all the world governments and incumbent telcos to agree to give them a sliver of spectrum. They had initially planned on direct satellite to phone communications until several telcos raised their hand and said no way, they had to go through ground stations where they could listen in on the conversations as well as charge access fees.

      Musk just fired Starlink's executive team because they couldn't meet his timeline. If they were bogged down trying to get spectrum, it's no surprise - it took Motorola years and thousands of meetings and bribes to pull it off. Motorola's final approval only came after a Motorola lobbyist waited until a specific country's representatives fell asleep. The lobbyist knew the reps were going to vote against approving the worldwide spectrum at an international telecom conference. The lobbyist delayed until 4am in the morning when very few representatives were present and the known going-to-vote-no guys were present but asleep. Only then did he bring Motorola's request up for a vote. It passed and Iridium was born

      After all that drama, Motorola/Iridium ended up with a very skinny slice of spectrum. More spectrum means more bandwidth. Bandwidth is something Iridium isn't known for.

  10. Sharks with laser beams, yes! by DamonHD · · Score: 4, Funny

    I still prefer the notion of a network of ocean line-dancing sharks supporting a mesh net of laser beams just skimming the surface.

    The training and fish bill is high, and this network facilitates phishing too, but you can't have everything.

    Rgds

    Damon

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  11. Re:How about gamers by suutar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Glass is 31% slower, not a rounding error. Speed of light through air is much closer to matching your description. While this article from 2013 talks about using air-based conduits, I don't think it's reached full deployment yet.

  12. What people need are specifications by jd · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  13. Re:How about gamers by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Rule of thumb: light does:
    * 1 m / 3 ns - signal in vacuum
    * 1 m / 4 ns - signal in copper wire
    * 1 m / 5 ns - signal in fiber optic cable

    It's a lot slower in in a bent fiber optic cable, of course, but long runs are effectively straight.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  14. What? by Dan+East · · Score: 2

    Handley's simulation suggests that the project will be most appealing to high-frequency traders at big banks, who might be willing to fork out large sums for dedicated, faster connections.

    Well that's just dumb. High frequency traders at big banks merely locate their data center / computing presence in close physical proximity to the point where the trades occur. Relying on a massive, expensive space network to come into existence just for high frequency trading is absurd.

    This will most appeal to the millions of people that do not have broadband. The money to be made is in the masses, not in "high-frequency traders at big banks".

    --
    Better known as 318230.