Sure, ships can have more expensive antennas. But you need a lot of those ships out there and the antennas are extremely expensive. I'm not sure what you are arguing about the simulation. Are you saying it's inaccurate and there's a better one?
> Sure, ships can have more expensive antennas. But you need a lot of those ships out there and the antennas are extremely expensive.
We're talking about receiving internet on ships, right? You need one per ship that wants internet. And it doesn't have to be 'extremely' expensive, it could be a moderate multiple of the normal user terminal.
In case you forgot the context, this is not a conversation about using relays. This is a conversation about how far offshore you can go in a single bounce.
> I'm not sure what you are arguing about the simulation. Are you saying it's inaccurate and there's a better one?
It's perfectly fine, but the goal of that simulation is to show a way of doing long distance high speed relays. The goal is not to show you maximum range if you don't relay.
I'm talking about ships used for relay. Ships used for just internet over the water won't be possible if there are no gateways (other ships with relays) over the water. Those terminals do have to be expensive, just like the gateway ones, because the antenna performance is much higher than the user terminal's, and the radome is very large (see other pictures from reddit on here).
For the non-relay case, we've already established that due to beam size you can't get very far off shore before it won't work. The goal of the simulation was also to show beam size. If the beam sizes are arbitrarily large then obviously the simulation would have shown a single hop.
> I'm talking about ships used for relay. Ships used for just internet over the water won't be possible if there are no gateways (other ships with relays) over the water.
I figured that out, but that's not really what the conversation was about. If you add those gateways then you don't have the range problems, and this was a conversation about range problems.
> Those terminals do have to be expensive, just like the gateway ones, because the antenna performance is much higher than the user terminal's, and the radome is very large (see other pictures from reddit on here).
The video you linked talks about using normal user terminals as relays. A couple of those won't be full bandwidth, but your mid-ocean service wouldn't need to be full bandwidth.
If you're actually making a dedicated relay ship you'd probably want a full radome link, but only if it's cheaper than the ship you're putting it on. The limiting factor is the cost of the ships.
> The goal of the simulation was also to show beam size.
I strongly disagree. Beam size is modeled in a very simple way, because it's not the goal of the simulation. The goal is to show how links work in different ways, using normal-scope full-bandwidth service beams.
I strongly doubt that an almost-idle sat is unable to aim even a few degrees wider if they wanted to.
But the person making that sim would have no way to model that, and it's not really worth it to get an extra fraction of a millisecond. Better to make the simulation based on confirmed capability.
But for ships at sea it's not a fraction of a millisecond, it's the difference between connectivity and no connectivity. If ships at sea were starlink's primary customers then I bet they could and would get better range even with zero hardware changes.
> The video you linked talks about using normal user terminals as relays. A couple of those won't be full bandwidth, but your mid-ocean service wouldn't need to be full bandwidth.
If you see my comment and others, using user terminals as relays is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. The EIRP/GT of those terminals will likely be very low, and that single relay will cut the bandwidth significantly. They also have much lower availability than a gateway, which makes the routing decisions harder.
> I strongly disagree.
What beam size do you think they're using? It's not really a question of IF they want to. Doing so on a cheap terminal can easily break FCC interference guidelines due to sidelobes, thus making it not their decision. That's the reason why these systems design for a very specific elevation limit from the user side, because anything else would either have too poor performance at the detriment of the entire satellite, or it's illegal if you're transmitting where you shouldn't. The performance degradation is very serious as well. It can be as bad as a single user consuming 10x more satellite resources than a nominal user, just because they're outside of the coverage of the beam.
So I realize where you're coming from in that they can do it, but I guarantee given the link budgets and cost-benefit tradeoff, it's simply not worth it to cover that far off boresight.
This is clearly not representative of starlink, but rather a GEO constellation. But the same concept applies: they will have tiny 0dB contours, and it rapidly falls after that. Serving users outside of the main contours, while it might be feasible given their antennas, is a massive hit to capacity on the entire constellation.
By the way, I think this dialogue is good and neither of us are going to convince each other. I think we will have to wait and see a year from now and revisit these comments.
Are the FCC interference guidelines exactly the same in the middle of the ocean?
And for what it's worth I looked up one of the licensing sheets earlier and it talked about the allowed signal strength below 25 degrees tapering off by 15dB. That's not enough to stop you from having a signal.
> too poor performance at the detriment of the entire satellite
> Serving users outside of the main contours, while it might be feasible given their antennas, is a massive hit to capacity on the entire constellation.
I think you're agreeing with me here.
It might cost a lot of the satellite's performance, which is why you wouldn't do it over land, and why it would be even less reasonable to include it in the simple simulation you linked.
But satellites over the ocean have nothing better to do with most of their capacity.
> By the way, I think this dialogue is good and neither of us are going to convince each other. I think we will have to wait and see a year from now and revisit these comments.
I'm fine stopping here, but revisiting in a year probably wouldn't help. There is a huge difference between what they can do, and what they care enough to do. Servicing ships that are more than 300 miles offshore, but not too much more, is definitely not a priority.
