I don’t have a source but it was my impression was that the receivers were going to be small enough for a mobile.
Presumably part of the market will be all of the millions of autonomous veichles that will need a constant internet connection, and the people inside the cars who will now not be driving will also want good internet connection.
The continually increasing value of the finite radio spectrum is one of the primary arguments advanced in favor of a two (and eventually more) tiered internet. In addition to consumers paying their ISPs for access to websites etc. website owners, content providers etc. might also be required, or at least have the option of paying, for faster better access to consumers. A consumer paying for a premium access service might still have a bad experience if a particular content provider had not paid the specific ISP provider for access to their consumers. It is precisely for these reasons that internet traffic on an increasing crowded spectrum needs to be segregated just like on toll/non toll roads.
None of my comment, or your previous comment, addresses why you believe the IoT is a red herring?
No landing legs or grid fins on the first stage today, and no recovery. What’s that about? Something to do with the launch to geostationary orbit (MECO was about 10 km higher than last launch) or were they just clearing out some old stock of boosters?
Seems unlikely. You need power output of a few watts to transmit to a satellite in GEO. Musk’s satellite are 30 times closer, so about a thousandth of the power requirement. But the sat isn’t fixed in the sky so you need an omnidirectional antenna, which pushes the power back requirement right back up. A mobile antenna of a few square cm would be ten thousand times smaller than a 1 metre dish. Sounds like a stretch.
I don’t understand many of the technical issues. I have heard of Radio Frequency over Fiber RFoF, but don’t know how it consumes spectrum, relative to other means of transmission.
Fiber only solves some problems, and the last mile is still expensive, so it has a bias toward premium service. No one is going to install fibre across Africa and a whole lot of other places as well, and also hope to make money.
I have fiber at home but make do with regular cable at work, because the only fiber available to me there is for a really high end niche service that I don’t need/can’t afford.
Still don’t know why you believe the IoT is a red herring.
Totally irrelevant. Free-space RF spectrum is the limited resource, as used by cellular, packet radio, satellite etc. You can stick anything you like over fibre without interfering with other media.
Yes, but the question is whether satellite is the solution for the last mile (plus all the miles in between) or something else. I know people in small-town/rural Texas who get decent last-mile internet over WiMax once a fibre-optic cable was laid along the route of Interstate 10. Nobody’s going to fibre-up rural Africa until there are enough paying customers there. By the same token, nobody’s going to make money providing satellite terminals to them. Nevertheless, fibre is comparatively cheap to lay.
Cable’s just as good for many residential customers. I have 240 Mbps cable at home which I expect will meet my needs for many years to come.
Because compared to current consumer traffic like video, I don’t see the internet being overwhelmed by your toothbrush calling up your dentist.
Right! The package size is (or should be) small, the traffic is non-urgent. It can be rerouted along the cheapest (longest) route, assuming the flags are set correctly. This is an enormous assumption, though, given how shoddily the IoT devices are cobbled together.
Ok, I can see my humorous hyperbolizing about my toothbrush fell flat or sailed right over.
I thought I had cleared that up by pointing out in this, or the Tesla thread, that most IoT demand would not come from household appliances. Vastly greater amounts of data will be consumed and generated by commercial/industrial/healthcare applications etc.
A 2h HD movie on Netflix consumes about 3 GB of data. First internet connected cars like Tesla, and then late fully autonomous cars with many cameras/sensors will generate vastly more data. One autonomous car is expected generate/consume as much data as 3,000 people do today. Numbers like 5TB an hour per car are being kicked around.
Won’t be too long before cars alone are generating 1T TB’s of data a day.
It would increase the cost vs a reusable rocket, but of course, up until very recently, all rockets were disposable. SpaceX’s launch costs are less than half the cost of the next cheapest launch provider.
As for where will the three cores land?
The two side stage ones will break off earlier than the centre core and return to landing zone 1 & 2 back to land at Kennedy. The centre core will continue on and land on the autonomous drone ship.
As for where they will store them all? well, that’s a good problem to have
The first Falcom heavy will be a sight to behold with the 1st two cores landing simultaneously just 100’s of meters apart and then a couple of minutes later the core landing on the drone ship. I will have popcorn and beer ready (depending on launch time)