> > Elon for whatever reason is insane enough to dump a lot of cash in > industries which everyone said was a dead end and then has been lucky > enough to prove the old guard wrong. >
> - Nobody had 'given up' on reusable launch vehicles. SpaceX (to their credit) just made it a core requirement in Falcon9 design from the outset, and was able to execute it. - Nobody had 'given up' on electric cars before Musk pushed the original founders of Tesla out. - Musk took Solarcity in the opposite direction (down) as the rest of the US solar industry grew. - Starlink still hasn't proven any of the 'old guard wrong'. Is Starlink operational? Yes. Has he proven it to be a viable business? No. (In fact, if you basic math on the numbers they espouse, it can't be.) Same for pretty much everything musk does, including starlink. So if > there is anything at all "revolutionary" here it's the insistence on > ignoring conventional wisdom. I think it might be borderline insanity, > but it seems to work for him. It 'seems to work for him' because : 1. He is a showman, and good at it. 2. When something is delivered, it's only because of him. When something isn't, it's always because of someone/something else. On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:02 AM Forrest Christian (List Account) < li...@packetflux.com> wrote: > Like I said, they're calling it revolutionary. Didn't say it was. > > However the idea that you can build spaceships which are fully reusable > was certainly around the industry, but the consensus was largely "we > tried, it costs too much, so we're sticking with one use rockets". Elon > for whatever reason is insane enough to dump a lot of cash in industries > which everyone said was a dead end and then has been lucky enough to prove > the old guard wrong. > > Same for pretty much everything musk does, including starlink. So if > there is anything at all "revolutionary" here it's the insistence on > ignoring conventional wisdom. I think it might be borderline insanity, > but it seems to work for him. > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 3:46 AM Jorge Amodio <jmamo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Musk didn't do anything revolutionary, besides launching a shload of LEO >> satellites. >> >> NASA and DoD have been working for long time on optical space >> communications, last year LCRD was launched and preliminary tests using it >> as a relay showed 622Mpbs, this year NASA will include on one of the >> cargo missions to ISS ILLUMA-T that will be installed at ISS and it is >> expected to provide 1.24Gpbs or more using LCRD as a relay with the two >> ground stations, one in HI, and one in CA. >> >> DoD/NRO have been working on this for some time now, but any information >> is in the top secret blackhole. >> >> -J >> >> >> -Jorge >> >> On Jan 23, 2023, at 1:54 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) < >> li...@packetflux.com> wrote: >> >> >> I think the thing they're calling revolutionary is the idea of those >> links being directional lasers. >> >> It makes some sense... if you can basically emit the same signal you'd >> shoot down a strand of single mode but aim it through the mostly vacuum of >> space in the exact direction of your neighbor then you've got something... >> Essentially the equivalent of a fiber optic network in space. >> >> For fun I tried plugging in some frequencies of light into a doppler >> calculator. Unfortunately that's where my "would the relative speed that >> mere mortals could attain make enough of a difference to affect a typical >> optical receiver" investigation ended as I'm mobile right now and can't do >> the rest of the work very easily. I'd be curious if the relative speed >> would be enough to cause enough shift to move it out of the pass band if a >> typical dwdm channel. >> >> And, I agree that little of what musk takes credit for is revolutionary. >> But what I do think he deserves credit for is being insane enough to try >> things everyone says is unworkable and failed in the past and somehow >> making at least some of them work. Having more money than God helps too. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2023, 8:55 PM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: >> >>> Yes re: Iridium. Contrary to what the Chief Huckster may say, inter-sat >>> comms are not some revolutionary thing that he invented. >>> >>> It’s also not likely to function anything like they show in marketing >>> promos, with data magically zipping around the constellation between nodes >>> in different inclinations. Unless they have managed to solve for the >>> Doppler effect in a way nobody has thought of yet. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 18:25 Crist Clark <cjc+na...@pumpky.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I suspect, although I have no references, that satellite to ground >>>> connectivity is probably more “circuit-based” than per-packet or frame. >>>> >>>> Iridium has done inter satellite communication for decades. I wonder if >>>> it wouldn’t be something very similar. Although it would be totally >>>> on-brand for them to do it some “revolutionary” new way whether it actually >>>> makes any sense or not. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 3:06 PM Matthew Petach <mpet...@netflight.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 2:45 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I read in the Economist that the gen of starlink satellites will have >>>>>> the ability to route messages between each satellite. Would >>>>>> conventional >>>>>> routing protocols be up to such a challenge? Or would it have to be >>>>>> custom made for that problem? And since a lot of companies and >>>>>> countries >>>>>> are getting on that action, it seems like fertile ground for (bad) >>>>>> wheel >>>>>> reinvention? >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unlike most terrestrial links, the distances between satellites are >>>>> not fixed, >>>>> and thus the latency between nodes is variable, making the concept of >>>>> "Shortest Path First" calculation a much more dynamic and challenging >>>>> one to keep current, as the latency along a path may be constantly >>>>> changing >>>>> as the satellite nodes move relative to each other, without any link >>>>> state actually >>>>> changing to trigger a new SPF calculation. >>>>> >>>>> I suspect a form of OLSR might be more advantageous in a dynamic >>>>> partial >>>>> mesh between satellites, but I haven't given it as much deep thought >>>>> as would >>>>> be necessary to form an informed opinion. >>>>> >>>>> So, yes--it's likely the routing protocol used will not be entirely >>>>> "off-the-shelf" >>>>> but will instead incorporate continuous latency information in the >>>>> LSDB, >>>>> and path selection will be time-bound based on the rate of increase in >>>>> latency >>>>> along currently-selected edges in the graph. >>>>> >>>>> An interesting problem to dive into, certainly. :) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>
