FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

Mon Jun 19 14:24:35 UTC 2023

>
> They are supposed to automatically de-orbit in ~5 years (atmospheric drag)
> if they are DOA based on a quick search.  That does mean that they are
> space junk for a while but not permanent space junk.
>

Sorta.

At 500km, an uncontrolled object can take around 10 years to deorbit
naturally. It's a function of cross sectional area, mass, and drag
coefficient. An uncontrolled object will also, over time, slowly orient
itself to a position of least drag, which thereby extends the curve. This
is also subject to natural atmospheric density fluctuations.

5 years for a spent bird at 550km is most likely the best possible case,
and won't be the norm.

On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 4:32 AM Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:

> They are supposed to automatically de-orbit in ~5 years (atmospheric drag)
> if they are DOA based on a quick search.  That does mean that they are
> space junk for a while but not permanent space junk.
>
> > On 19 Jun 2023, at 17:44, borg at uu3.net wrote:
> >
> > Heh, its kinda sad that noone mentions space environment impact at all.
> > How that 40k sats will pollute already decently pulluted orbit.
> >
> > I wonder if decommision process will be clean (burn in atmosphere).
> > If there will be failure rate, we will end up w/ dead sats at orbit.
> >
> > I really wonder if thats really necessary. I think that money could be
> > better spent building earth infra reaching those under-serviced places.
> > Cheaper, easy maintenance, less centralization.
> >
> > We also need orbit for more importand sats out there than internet.
> > GPS, earth monitoring infra, space telescopes, R&D.
> >
> >
> > ---------- Original message ----------
> >
> > From: Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc>
> > To: Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com>
> > Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of
> Data Caps
> > Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 21:11:53 -0400
> >
> >>
> >> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the
> >> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight
> >> termination system.
> >>
> >
> > The fact that not only they tested WITHOUT a water deluge system the
> first
> > time, OR a flame trench, is why the Cult of Musk will continue to hold
> them
> > back. It's fascinating to me to watch him 'discover' solutions to
> problems
> > solved 50 years ago that he chose to ignore.
> >
> > The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of
> >> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised
> >> fondag,
> >> as thought.
> >>
> >
> > The easily predictable environmental damage around the launch area still
> > exists and is significant, and will take them months to clean up via the
> > terms of their contract with the state of Texas.
> >
> > There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing
> >> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site
> >> has been dug out and partially repaired,  and a new launch license was
> >> issued for the next 6 months last week.
> >>
> >
> > Also here, the fact that they even have LOX and CH4 thanks THAT CLOSE to
> > the pad itself is borderline negligent, but still absolutely mind
> > boggling.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 8:04˙˙PM Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16˙˙PM Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more
> >> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to
> >> really drive down the launch cost.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test
> >> launch from Texas was not a 'successful failure' as widely portrayed in
> the
> >> media.  Reputable people who have been working in this field for decades
> >> have pointed out tons of massive problems that are not quick fixes.
> >>
> >> 1) I agree that they are years from flight ready, however the
> >> improvements in the queue for the next launch are already impressive.
> >> A lot of nay-saying concerns have been addressed since the launch.
> >>
> >> The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of
> >> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised
> >> fondag,
> >> as thought.
> >>
> >> While the everyday astronaut and starbase_csi can be thought of as
> >> fanbois, they are also producing the most quality reporting and
> >> analysis that exists:
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut
> >> https://twitter.com/CSI_Starbase
> >>
> >> They are good folk to track.
> >>
> >> Eric Burger is a more conventional tech journalist covering all of
> space:
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace
> >>
> >> https://arstechnica.com/author/ericberger/
> >>
> >> There are an amazing number of individuals reporting on daily
> >> progress, with live video feeds.
> >>
> >> There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing
> >> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site
> >> has been dug out and partially repaired,  and a new launch license was
> >> issued for the next 6 months last week.
> >>
> >> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the
> >> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight
> >> termination system. The next ship and booster will possibly be tested
> >> next month, and these have replaced the hydrolic controls with
> >> electric and have better motor shielding in general.
> >>
> >> Yes, an utterly amazing amount of things need to go right to launch a
> >> spaceship, but ... my best bet for another launch of starship would be
> >> early september.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 6:56˙˙PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Whether or not it makes business sense isn't really what I was talking
> >> about. I was talking about the home dish costing $1k. That sounds like
> it
> >> could easily be reduced significantly unless there is some underlying
> tech
> >> reason.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more
> >> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to
> >> really drive down the launch cost.
> >>>>
> >>>> But your calculations don't take into account that they are not at
> >> anywhere close to a full constellation: they are only at 4k out of the
> 40k
> >> they need so they literally can't support higher numbers. Their new
> >> generation of satellite is also suppose to be doing some in-orbit
> routing
> >> or something like that which would I would assume will really help on
> the
> >> bandwidth front. How much that affects their maximum subscriber base
> when
> >> they are fully deployed I don't know but it's bound to be a lot more
> >> possible subs than they have now.
> >>>>
> >>>> I mean, this could be a spectacular flop like Iridium but a lot has
> >> changed in 20 some years not least of which is the cost of launch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike
> >>>>
> >>>> On 6/17/23 2:53 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are
> >> the real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling
> >> demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would make
> sense to
> >> overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe
> that
> >> makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can see
> >> marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly just
> >> software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck roll.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Starlink currently reports around 1.5M subscribers. At $110 a month,
> >> that's $165M in revenue,
> >>>>
> >>>> - A Falcon 9 launch is billed out at $67M. A Falcon 9 can carry up to
> >> 60 Starlink sats. That's ~667 launches to reach the stated goal of 40k
> sats
> >> in the constellation. So roughly $45B in just launch costs, if you
> assume
> >> the public launch price. (Because if they are launching their own stuff,
> >> they aren't launching an external paying customer.)
> >>>> - The reported price per sat is $250k.
> >>>>
> >>>> Assuming they give themselves a friendly internal discount, the
> orbital
> >> buildout cost are in the neighborhood of $30B for launches, and $10B for
> >> sats.
> >>>>
> >>>> - The satellite failure rate is stated to be ~ 3% annually. On a 40K
> >> cluster, that's 1200 a year.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's about 20 more launches a year, and $300M for replacement sats.
> >> Let's round off and say that's $1B a year there.
> >>>>
> >>>> So far, that's a $40B buildout with a $1B annual run rate. And that's
> >> just the orbital costs. We haven't even calculated the manufacturing
> costs
> >> of the receiver dishes, terrestrial network infra cost , opex from
> staff ,
> >> R&D, etc .
> >>>>
> >>>> Numbers kinda speak for themselves here.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you
> will
> >> he does have big ambitions.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ambition is good. But reality tends to win the day. As does math.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 4:38˙˙PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 6/17/23 1:25 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner
> >>>>>> rather than later?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Unlikely. They will remain niche. The economics don't make sense for
> >> those services to completely replace terrestrial only service.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why would they put up 40000 satellites if their ambition is only
> >> niche? I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you
> >> will he does have big ambitions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From my standpoint, they don't have to completely replace the
> >> incumbents. I'd be perfectly happy just keeping them honest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are
> >> the real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling
> >> demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would make
> sense to
> >> overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe
> that
> >> makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can see
> >> marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly just
> >> software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck roll.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mike
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:17˙˙PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 6/16/23 1:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Mark,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In my world I constantly see people with 0 fixed internet options.
> >>>>>>>> Many of these locations do not even have mobile coverage.
> >>>>>>>> Competition is fine in town, but for millions of people in the US
> >>>>>>>> (and I'm going to assume it's worse or comparable in CA/MX) there
> >> is
> >>>>>>>> no service.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As a company primarily delivering to residents, competition is not
> >> a
> >>>>>>>> focus for us and for the urban market it's tough to survive on a
> >> ~1/3
> >>>>>>>> take rate.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I should have been clearer... the lack of competition in many
> >> markets
> >>>>>>> is not unique to North America. I'd say all of the world suffers
> >> that,
> >>>>>>> since there is only so much money and resources to go around.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What I was trying to say is that should a town or village have the
> >>>>>>> opportunity to receive competition, where existing services are
> >>>>>>> capped, uncapping that via an alternative provider would be low
> >>>>>>> hanging fruit to gain local marketshare. Of course, the alternative
> >>>>>>> provider would need to show up first, but that's a whole other
> >> thread.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner
> >>>>>> rather than later? I don't know if they have caps as well, but even
> if
> >>>>>> they do they could compete with their caps.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mike
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Podcast:
> >>
> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7058793910227111937/
> >> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> >>
>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka at isc.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20230619/a1e246ba/attachment.html>