SpaceX launches more Starlink satellites, misses booster landing(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
SpaceX launches more Starlink satellites, misses booster landing
https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/17/spacex-successfully-launches-60-more-starlink-satellites-but-misses-booster-landing/
224 comments
I thought this was because video was provided by line of sight antennas and as Starlink satellites are released the 2nd stage flips end over end while releasing them thus breaking the line of sight.
you mean the seconds before this?:
https://youtu.be/vFTg3-40Mfg?t=745
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/spacex-releases-60...
or for this launch?
https://youtu.be/vFTg3-40Mfg?t=745
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/spacex-releases-60...
or for this launch?
Putting Starlink launches on different screens and letting them run synchronized from the time that the video cuts off:
the confirmation of tension rod release and payload separation and the video coming back happens almost at the same time.
Today: https://youtu.be/8xeX62mLcf8?t=1489
January, 29th: https://youtu.be/1KmBDCiL7MU?t=4414
January, 6th: https://youtu.be/HwyXo6T7jC4?t=4390
November, 11th: https://youtu.be/pIDuv0Ta0XQ?t=4549
May, 25th: https://youtu.be/riBaVeDTEWI?t=4579
Today: https://youtu.be/8xeX62mLcf8?t=1489
January, 29th: https://youtu.be/1KmBDCiL7MU?t=4414
January, 6th: https://youtu.be/HwyXo6T7jC4?t=4390
November, 11th: https://youtu.be/pIDuv0Ta0XQ?t=4549
May, 25th: https://youtu.be/riBaVeDTEWI?t=4579
From my understanding, the second stage starts spinning just before the release of Starlink satellites to give the stack the momentum necessary for the clean separation. This could explain the loss of camera feed. Internal SpaceX telemetry is likely being transmitted over a separate channel and remains uninterruptible.
Yes, they spin it to disperse the satellites. The loss of video depending on the rotation is a good idea and indeed it looks like the video is failing frequently before the separation event as well. See https://youtu.be/HwyXo6T7jC4?t=4286
very interesting. I don't believe the rotation to be the cause though, the angle towards the ground doesn't change much.
I thought maybe it's the shock from the release, but I think the release happens quite a bit after the video cuts off (judging from how close the satellites still are when it comes back)
I thought maybe it's the shock from the release, but I think the release happens quite a bit after the video cuts off (judging from how close the satellites still are when it comes back)
Vibration. The deployment probably disturbs the telemetry connection for a second. The same thing used to happen for landings. The camera would always cut out right as the booster reached the barge because the vibration interrupted the telemetry connection temporarily.
Like we never saw the actual landing of the F9 on a droneship until very recently. I remember being very surprised when the camera suddenly DIDN'T stop working and you could actually see the F9 actually land.
Some of the early landings have been shown from drones, NASA aircraft cameras (hello Canberra!) or from a recording from the rocket itself.
On land or on a drone ship?
I thought I've seen pretty much all of the landings, but can't recall a drone ship landing shown from an air plane camera.
Especially with all the exploding rockets in the early days of landings.
Do you have a link to one such landing, would be really interesting to see.
I thought I've seen pretty much all of the landings, but can't recall a drone ship landing shown from an air plane camera.
Especially with all the exploding rockets in the early days of landings.
Do you have a link to one such landing, would be really interesting to see.
The first droneship landing after launching Dragon with cargo to the ISS (CRS-8) was filmed from the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYmQQn_ZSys
Mission description is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-8
Mission description is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-8
Maybe there is some secret sauce they don't want known.
Right the tension rod release mechanism isn't shown. The tension rods are chucked away as space junk which the announcer probably doesn't want to talk about. Also agree it's kind of secret sauce. Much simpler than oneweb's corncob dispenser.
These are lower orbits so any space junk released is eventually going to burn up. Not sure how long it'll take... years I think, but not too long.
Delta = 0
Alright guys. The competition will never figure out they need to stop before the rocket reaches the ground!
Alright guys. The competition will never figure out they need to stop before the rocket reaches the ground!
I've been watching SpX stuff for so many years now, I am pretty sure they would just say so if that was the case.
... which is fine and understandable, but they should really stop with this "oh, we lost a feed" bullshit. It's obnoxious.
How many other launch providers before SpaceX even had feeds of their launches or their payload separations?
People really should stop complaining about the really cool thing SpaceX does, but not perfectly.
People really should stop complaining about the really cool thing SpaceX does, but not perfectly.
Pretty much all of them? Certainly, I remember watching realplayer streams of the first-generation Iridium satellites being launched, way back in the late 1990s.
Doing very cool stuff is not a reason enough to be disrespectful towards your audience.
During one of the first booster landing attempts a presenter lady was staring at her monitor, saw the booster crash and then proceeded to blatantly lie that the feed was lost... while the jumbotron behind her back was showing the whole thing in real-time and the audio picking up the crowd in SpaceX going "Oooooh".
Then, there are their inane explanations that they keep losing the feed from the landing platform because the sea is rippled. The heck. If you are going to lie, come up with something a bit more plausible. A plasma ball interference from the plume or something.
Better yet, just say that we are going to delay the feed by 10 seconds and we may withhold any part of it as we wish. Everyone would be perfectly fine with that. It's their feed and it's awesome when they share anything at all. Just don't BS. There's literally no need to do that.
During one of the first booster landing attempts a presenter lady was staring at her monitor, saw the booster crash and then proceeded to blatantly lie that the feed was lost... while the jumbotron behind her back was showing the whole thing in real-time and the audio picking up the crowd in SpaceX going "Oooooh".
Then, there are their inane explanations that they keep losing the feed from the landing platform because the sea is rippled. The heck. If you are going to lie, come up with something a bit more plausible. A plasma ball interference from the plume or something.
Better yet, just say that we are going to delay the feed by 10 seconds and we may withhold any part of it as we wish. Everyone would be perfectly fine with that. It's their feed and it's awesome when they share anything at all. Just don't BS. There's literally no need to do that.
Perhaps it is related to USML 1.121[1] Category XV.4(a)?
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/121.1
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/121.1
Are you claiming these sats dont exist? Or simply that a for profit company didn't record for it so noncustomers could watch it for free?
> It is a bit surprising since the mechanism does not seem that sophisticated.
I am hinting there at a clever solution that they do not want to show (or a solution that they must not show because of regulations).
I am hinting there at a clever solution that they do not want to show (or a solution that they must not show because of regulations).
I'm guessing it might be censored for national security reasons. The same mechanism that successfully deploys 60 satellites could probably also successfully deploy 60 warheads. Or 60 nefarious spy satellites.
>The same mechanism that successfully deploys 60 satellites could probably also successfully deploy 60 warheads
We've had missiles that could do that since 1970. They're called MIRVs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
We've had missiles that could do that since 1970. They're called MIRVs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
MIRVs are almost certainly covered by ITAR, so the fact that they exist doesn't really change anything...
It's a good question about something that is probably not a coincidence! But immediately moving to speculating about a conspiracy theory seems like hiding a good question with a fake answer.
It seems better to keep it unanswered and remain curious.
It seems better to keep it unanswered and remain curious.
"Conspiracy theory" is an exaggeration. Lots of things rocketry related are covered by ITAR and are not allowed (by law) to be shown to non-green-card holders. SpaceX is pretty careful to comply with ITAR restrictions. It would not surprise me in the slightest if the US government had decided that satellite deployment mechanisms were one of those things covered, or if SpaceX's legal department decided that they weren't sure they weren't covered.
If that were true, they would simply say as much. What possible advantage would there be to offer a bullshit reason?
A far more likely reason is that it's technically hard, and/or not a priority.
A far more likely reason is that it's technically hard, and/or not a priority.
I tend to agree, but that doesn't mean keeping quiet about ITAR is "conspiracy theory" level of ridiculousness.
Possible advantages could be avoiding looking like they are putting pressure on the US government to change it, avoid getting into debates about whether or not ITAR prohibits it, avoiding looking like they are a workplace that is heavily bogged down by security clearance issues, etc.
Possible advantages could be avoiding looking like they are putting pressure on the US government to change it, avoid getting into debates about whether or not ITAR prohibits it, avoiding looking like they are a workplace that is heavily bogged down by security clearance issues, etc.
Yeah, I totally have to agree.
They have repeatedly cut streams and stated they aren't allowed to show the payload deploying.
They have repeatedly cut streams and stated they aren't allowed to show the payload deploying.
I don't think it's intellectually honest to label something as a conspiracy theory and brush it aside without discussion.
They say it's a simple tension mechanism, nothing fancy. The attachment of the satellite stack is not even within the camera's FoV.
I'm guessing it's just a vibration issue.
I'm guessing it's just a vibration issue.
Of all the different parts a ICBM is made of, I doubt that the warhead release mechanism is the most difficult.
Is a deployment bus really that complicated? It's what, a girder with a couple of solenoids or explosive bolts?
If I remember correctly, SpX is one of the few (only) who doesn't use explosives for their fairing separation or sat releases. Just some springs, because "they can be tested before the flight".
And even though very reliable, explosive bolts do fail, sometimes spectacularly. Just a few years ago an Indian PSLV fairing separation failed, yet released the sattelite inside the closed fairing, which did reach orbit. As it could not get out, this was a failed launch & IIRC the failed fairing separation mechanism was pyrotechnic.
Given the nose cone fairings cost $6 million [0], I don’t think anything in space tech can be non-complicated and useful at the same time.
[0] If it were literally any other company in space, I would accuse them of porkbarrelling. SpaceX looks like it is genuinely concerned with cost, so I don’t think that’s happening in this case.
[0] If it were literally any other company in space, I would accuse them of porkbarrelling. SpaceX looks like it is genuinely concerned with cost, so I don’t think that’s happening in this case.
Do we know if SpaceX has taken any steps to address the issue with Starlink satellites affecting astronomers' view of the night sky? https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/spacex-s...
They are actively working on reducing reflectivity but there will always be an impact and honestly any effort to improve it will be well appreciated by me. However, even though I love the work astronomers do and the view of a clear sky into the stars, I must say I prefer global Internet availability over making astronomers clean their data from satelite datapoints.
Most discussions about this leave the goal of Starlink out of the picture. If this can bring Internet access to every spot on Earth, the immediate benefit for humanity is clear.
You can view that as benefit to humanity.
Or you can view that as private, for profit corporation trying to make money in a way that’s impacting our ability to do a scientific research.
Or you can view that as private, for profit corporation trying to make money in a way that’s impacting our ability to do a scientific research.
On the other hand, Starlink is going to make use of their next-gen Starship, and with a viable amount of business space launches will become cheap enough for launching lots of cheap specialized space telescopes.
[deleted]
> However, even though I love the work astronomers do and the view of a clear sky into the stars, I must say I prefer global Internet availability over making astronomers clean their data from satelite datapoints.
That’s great because apparently nobody but SpaceX has any say in what happens.
That’s great because apparently nobody but SpaceX has any say in what happens.
Are you unaware of the federal licenses required for these satellites to be deployed, or do you just mean they were granted without taking astronomers' wishes into account?
Edit: This is a sincere question. Several comments on this story indicate people don't believe there's any regulation as to what happens in space.
Edit 2: While I'm editing things, here's the FCC Record for the original Starlink proposal in case you're curious what some of the objections brought up during the original comment period were. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-38A1.pdf Mostly it looks like other satellite operators worried about interference, orbital debris concerns, and there was a note about potential impacts on radio astronomy.
Edit: This is a sincere question. Several comments on this story indicate people don't believe there's any regulation as to what happens in space.
Edit 2: While I'm editing things, here's the FCC Record for the original Starlink proposal in case you're curious what some of the objections brought up during the original comment period were. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-38A1.pdf Mostly it looks like other satellite operators worried about interference, orbital debris concerns, and there was a note about potential impacts on radio astronomy.
> Are you unaware of the federal licenses required for these satellites to be deployed
Astronomers are in other countries besides the US... and these satellites are going to span the globe impacting everyone everywhere.
Astronomers are in other countries besides the US... and these satellites are going to span the globe impacting everyone everywhere.
To be clear, I'm not actually saying this is all the fine. I think there are discussions to be had about the obviously worldwide impact. However, the point that I'm making was that "nobody but SpaceX has any say in what happens" is not true.
Certainly people can complain that current international treaties, federal regulations and so on aren't sufficient, that the decisions reached by regulatory bodies were incorrect, or ill informed, etc. But first they should be aware those decisions existed and did take into account input from a variety of sources, and it's not just 'if you can get it to space, do whatever you want'.
Certainly people can complain that current international treaties, federal regulations and so on aren't sufficient, that the decisions reached by regulatory bodies were incorrect, or ill informed, etc. But first they should be aware those decisions existed and did take into account input from a variety of sources, and it's not just 'if you can get it to space, do whatever you want'.
Not sure if you're aware, but it's widely publicized that SpaceX was granted licenses, waivers, and extensions that other companies were not, nor have been in the past. So yes, they have licenses, but it seems lobbying and Elon's fame has far more to do with this than anything.
Evidently the federal licenses didn’t work. It seems like you can simply buy approval and override public interest.
Secondly, the problem is not just in federal air space.
Secondly, the problem is not just in federal air space.
Radio astronomers were all over it well before the first Tintin test satellites launched.
The optical astronomers weren’t in the habit of commenting on satellite launch licensing and got caught on the back foot. Now the media campaign is basically optical astronomers complaining that “there is no process” because they didn’t get involved in the process in time.
The optical astronomers weren’t in the habit of commenting on satellite launch licensing and got caught on the back foot. Now the media campaign is basically optical astronomers complaining that “there is no process” because they didn’t get involved in the process in time.
What process might you have used as someone with no money or political clout and to what end?
The same process the other people use: respond to the applications while they are open for comment. Just write a letter with pen on paper if that’s the level of funding you have.
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/repor...
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/repor...
> If this can bring Internet access to every spot on Earth, the immediate benefit for humanity is clear.
In which part of the earth are you missing the internet coverage so horribly?
In which part of the earth are you missing the internet coverage so horribly?
30 minutes away from Microsoft main campus in Redmond WA, (and just a bit further away from Google/Amazon campus' in the area)
Best available internet is a 3mbit down, 1-if-you're-lucky-mbit up DSL connection from CenturyLink with latency that jumps into the 2.5+ second range when it rains hard. Which, fortunately it never does in the pacific northwest. :-D
And no, traditional satellite is a no-go, even if it was an affordable option. We have these things called "mountains" you see, and the satellites are only at certain spots in the sky, sadly occluded by a couple billion tons of rock and tree.
To reiterate, this is within commuting distance of "big tech" HQs.
Starlink can't come fast enough. Existing ISPs need to feel the pain of screwing their customers so bad for so long.
Best available internet is a 3mbit down, 1-if-you're-lucky-mbit up DSL connection from CenturyLink with latency that jumps into the 2.5+ second range when it rains hard. Which, fortunately it never does in the pacific northwest. :-D
And no, traditional satellite is a no-go, even if it was an affordable option. We have these things called "mountains" you see, and the satellites are only at certain spots in the sky, sadly occluded by a couple billion tons of rock and tree.
To reiterate, this is within commuting distance of "big tech" HQs.
Starlink can't come fast enough. Existing ISPs need to feel the pain of screwing their customers so bad for so long.
I'm within line-of-sight of Google HQ (I can literally see their campus from my porch, less than six miles away) yet my only wired internet option is AT&T DSL. Comcast offered to add my home to their network for a paltry $22,000. I look forward to Starlink creating a universal competitor even if I'm not a customer. It'd be even better if rockets needn't be involved in creating a competitive marketplace, but that doesn't seem likely.
I don’t understand, why is it not feasible to bring faster internet connectivity to suburban America with traditional infrastructure? Why do we need an entrepreneur to launch a constellation of satellites into low earth orbit—ruining the night sky for astronomers globally?
Countries like Finland and Iceland can bring decent speed internet to rural populations where it rains as much (or even more) then in the pacific north west. So I don’t know what makes America so exceptional that they can’t bring good internet to their population.
Countries like Finland and Iceland can bring decent speed internet to rural populations where it rains as much (or even more) then in the pacific north west. So I don’t know what makes America so exceptional that they can’t bring good internet to their population.
> why is it not feasible to bring faster internet connectivity to suburban America with traditional infrastructure?
Politics and corruption. Existing entrenched ISPs are massively profitable. Competition kills profits.
Politics and corruption. Existing entrenched ISPs are massively profitable. Competition kills profits.
It sounds like a change in policy would be more sane then entrusting private entrepreneur in fixing this very solvable problem.
Oh yeah. That's definitely all it is. Why didn't we figure that out?
What policy do you want to change?
What policy do you want to change?
Since the problem is lack of internet infrastructure, as the market has failed in providing decent internet to a significant portion of the population, I suggest that the government subsides (or even funds) the infrastructure projects required for bringing the portion of the population a decent internet connection that the marked has failed.
That seems like a pretty obvious policy change that a mere layperson can come up with in their couch. I’m sure a civil engineer can do better though.
That seems like a pretty obvious policy change that a mere layperson can come up with in their couch. I’m sure a civil engineer can do better though.
I don't know how much you can say it's a market problem as such, a role is clearly played by regulatory capture combined with/leading to/reinforcing monopolies. Local american governments granting big ISPs de jure or de facto sole rights to law down cable in a town means it's very hard to break in to the market as a hypothetical newer, smaller ISP.
I don't know that monopolies and rent-seeking wouldn't show up anyway with laxer regulation, but it's something to be taken into account.
I don't know that monopolies and rent-seeking wouldn't show up anyway with laxer regulation, but it's something to be taken into account.
Like I indicated, I’m not a civil engineer and am in no position to be coming up with a policy my self. I can say though—and I might be wrong—that America has some policy that might be hindering traditional infrastructure being build to provide decent internet connectivity to some parts of the population. I’m sure there are civil engineers though that can provide examples of better policy that may help solve this issue.
Claiming that the market has failed in a industry that has been utterly dominated by government and that was never actually a real market is pretty rich. This started out as basically a state monopoly that was then partially privatized but local monopoly laws were held in place.
Just throwing more money at utterly gridlocked system is not the solution.
Just throwing more money at utterly gridlocked system is not the solution.
So all you need to do is change the policy determining billions of dollars of infrastructure and profits with powerful entrenched interests? Where do I sign up?
This system is not primary for suburban America, but for places that are further out. But if suburban America is so shit, then why not solve this problem as well.
Nothing stops the US except incompetence.
Nothing stops the US except incompetence.
Sounds like a mostly-US problem that would be better solved by proper regulation of markets. But nah, that'd be crazy socialism stuff.
It is absolutely not a "mostly-US problem". We have the same problem in Australia. A lot of places only option was crappy ADSL. Then new (centre-left) government announced a project (NBN) to install fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) to the majority of the population. Massive, very expensive project, that was going to take a long time. Quite predictably, the centre-right party attacked it as costing too much money. Six years later, the centre-right win election, and thus far only a small number of lucky people had got their FTTP installed. New government decides FTTP was too expensive, replaces it with crappy fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) instead, which slows to a crawl whenever the node is oversubscribed (happens a lot due to the growing popularity of video streaming). And it tells other people that any fixed line solution was too expensive for them, and forces them on to wireless or satellite. Some people even got told they were losing their ADSL and having it replaced with a less reliable wireless or satellite connection.
... poor internet bandwidth or accessibility in remote region... is a "US only problem"??
I make it a point to not sound snarky or sarcastic on HN, we have a pretty good standard of discourse here - but that just seems a ludicrous statement to make, and I'm frankly curious what consideration went into it, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction?
I don't think technology will solve all the world's ills; I agree that regulation of markets is a useful measure to undertake in certain situations; I don't find "Socialist" a swear word; but if ever there was a problem with a technical solution, then accessibility of internet in remote solution is almost the canonical use-case. Regulation of markets will not bring the Interwebs to remote or underdeveloped parts of the world.
Now... if we want to discuss whether bringing the Intertubes to all the world is a worthy goal or not; whether it is worth the compromises and risks a massive constellation of satellites will impose; sure, that's a productive tops to examine. But if we accept for sake of argument that internet in remote or underdeveloped parts of the world is a goal, I'm curious to see how market regulation will make that happen better and faster than a giant freakin' laser... I mean, giant freakin' constellation of satellites :).
I make it a point to not sound snarky or sarcastic on HN, we have a pretty good standard of discourse here - but that just seems a ludicrous statement to make, and I'm frankly curious what consideration went into it, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction?
I don't think technology will solve all the world's ills; I agree that regulation of markets is a useful measure to undertake in certain situations; I don't find "Socialist" a swear word; but if ever there was a problem with a technical solution, then accessibility of internet in remote solution is almost the canonical use-case. Regulation of markets will not bring the Interwebs to remote or underdeveloped parts of the world.
Now... if we want to discuss whether bringing the Intertubes to all the world is a worthy goal or not; whether it is worth the compromises and risks a massive constellation of satellites will impose; sure, that's a productive tops to examine. But if we accept for sake of argument that internet in remote or underdeveloped parts of the world is a goal, I'm curious to see how market regulation will make that happen better and faster than a giant freakin' laser... I mean, giant freakin' constellation of satellites :).
Local market regulation is what is blocking any competition. The absurd believe people have that whenever something isn't working, markets will need more regulation is so absurd.
There are literally regulation that are preventing markets from even existing. But your solution is more regulation?
There are literally regulation that are preventing markets from even existing. But your solution is more regulation?
It's all local state-enforced monopolies, man. The current internet situation is pretty close to socialist paradise.
California, about an hour outside of SF.
The quality of internet service falls off precipitously as you leave urban city limits.
It's better than it could be - when we decided to move "to the country", we almost bought a property where the only internet option was HughesNet. From all reports, HughesNet is incredibly expensive and barely usable. A big plus for the place we landed is that we can get "rural wireless broadband" - basically a point-to-point wifi signal bounced off of a solar-powered relay on a hill, to a set of towers on a faraway ridge, run by a folksy two-man ISP. It's expensive, unreliable, and slow compared to what I left in SF. But it's better than HughesNet and there's no data cap.
I don't know what to expect from Starlink, but I'm hopeful. Even if it's just a reliable 10Mbit connection I'll be ecstatic.
The quality of internet service falls off precipitously as you leave urban city limits.
It's better than it could be - when we decided to move "to the country", we almost bought a property where the only internet option was HughesNet. From all reports, HughesNet is incredibly expensive and barely usable. A big plus for the place we landed is that we can get "rural wireless broadband" - basically a point-to-point wifi signal bounced off of a solar-powered relay on a hill, to a set of towers on a faraway ridge, run by a folksy two-man ISP. It's expensive, unreliable, and slow compared to what I left in SF. But it's better than HughesNet and there's no data cap.
I don't know what to expect from Starlink, but I'm hopeful. Even if it's just a reliable 10Mbit connection I'll be ecstatic.
I feel for you. Our holiday house is about 30km beyond the middle of nowhere, but the 4g uplink is reliable. Plus we have to share it with very very few others...
If we ever need more, I'll probaby do just like the folksy two-man ISP you describe...
If we ever need more, I'll probaby do just like the folksy two-man ISP you describe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage#/media/F...
More supply drives down prices. Don't even mention current satelite Internet. Those operate via GSO satelites with seconds of ping and a way higher pricing considering SpaceX wants to be competitive with broadband pricing.
More supply drives down prices. Don't even mention current satelite Internet. Those operate via GSO satelites with seconds of ping and a way higher pricing considering SpaceX wants to be competitive with broadband pricing.
Something like over 40% of the world's population doesn't have internet access.
Forests, the Arctic, much of Africa, Asia, every ocean?
My mom's house in rural Arkansas. I mean basically if you live outside of a large city you have 1 choice of internet access and it's usually hot garbage and over priced.
Vallies. Villages. Beaches.... Has this person never traveled?
Usually you are able to save the tasks that require fast internet connection for later. If you find your self on a slow internet connection while uploading a large video file, you can hold that up until you find somewhere that has a fast connection.
You also often have the option of lowering the bandwidth requirements (e.g. switch of the video call for a voice call at a lower quality). I find fast internet a luxury rather then anything while traveling.
You also often have the option of lowering the bandwidth requirements (e.g. switch of the video call for a voice call at a lower quality). I find fast internet a luxury rather then anything while traveling.
And you can also not use wireless ever until you can connect to a cable.
What kind of logic is that? Sure, humanity has existed before global internet. But now that we can have it, there are 100s of reason to do so.
You see it as a luxury, but so is the ability to buy clean water or even get it of the tab. Things that are luxury in the beginning get cheap enough so many can use it and that whats called progresses.
What kind of logic is that? Sure, humanity has existed before global internet. But now that we can have it, there are 100s of reason to do so.
You see it as a luxury, but so is the ability to buy clean water or even get it of the tab. Things that are luxury in the beginning get cheap enough so many can use it and that whats called progresses.
I don’t think it will be available in the Arctic.
https://streamable.com/3lbqj
https://streamable.com/3lbqj
Is there a reason you need fast internet connection in forrests/on the Arctic/while sailing in the middle of the ocean?[1] Is there a reason why much of Africa or Asia can’t invest in similar infrastructure as Europe has done to provide internet to where people live?
1: Maybe it could be handy to transmit large amount of science data I suppose, but they seemed to be able to cope with this limitation while photographing the black holes
1: Maybe it could be handy to transmit large amount of science data I suppose, but they seemed to be able to cope with this limitation while photographing the black holes
> Is there a reason you need fast internet connection in forrests/on the Arctic/while sailing in the middle of the ocean?[1]
is there a reason you need fast internet at home? now imagine being some place that isn't home.
> Is there a reason why much of Africa or Asia can’t invest in similar infrastructure as Europe has done to provide internet to where people live?
crushing poverty? come on, just tell them to eat cake while you're at it.
is there a reason you need fast internet at home? now imagine being some place that isn't home.
> Is there a reason why much of Africa or Asia can’t invest in similar infrastructure as Europe has done to provide internet to where people live?
crushing poverty? come on, just tell them to eat cake while you're at it.
> is there a reason you need fast internet at home? now imagine being some place that isn't home.
My internet needs away from home are vastly different then at home, so I don’t understand how this is an answer.
> crushing poverty?
It is highly likely that the same poverty is going to prevent locals from using Starlink. Besides lacking infrastructure in large parts of Africa and Asia has often been the result of bad policy, or wars, not poverty (or poverty as a result of war). A lot of African nations are catching up on their infrastructure projects, and I see no reason why they will skip internet connectivity as they build up their infrastructure (given that most African nations have infinitely better policy—and a lot fewer wars—now then say 30 years ago).
My internet needs away from home are vastly different then at home, so I don’t understand how this is an answer.
> crushing poverty?
It is highly likely that the same poverty is going to prevent locals from using Starlink. Besides lacking infrastructure in large parts of Africa and Asia has often been the result of bad policy, or wars, not poverty (or poverty as a result of war). A lot of African nations are catching up on their infrastructure projects, and I see no reason why they will skip internet connectivity as they build up their infrastructure (given that most African nations have infinitely better policy—and a lot fewer wars—now then say 30 years ago).
I used to live on a boat. It'd be nice to have access to the internet when I do so again even coastally. I can't even imagine how much of a boon getting internet access across an ocean would be. Not only to help with boredom, but also to get heaps of up to date weather observation and prediction data to do routing.
I’ve never navigated across oceans so I don’t know this, but can’t you already get (albeit slow) internet connection at sea via satellite? Or at least sufficient connection for accessing weather data?
Regarding boredom, I know a lot of sailors bring with them physical media, i.e. books, DVDs, video games, etc. knowing the internet connection will be slow.
I know getting fast internet at sea would certainly make life better for people traveling across oceans a lot, but the question is: Is is worth sacrificing the night sky for astronomers over?
Regarding boredom, I know a lot of sailors bring with them physical media, i.e. books, DVDs, video games, etc. knowing the internet connection will be slow.
I know getting fast internet at sea would certainly make life better for people traveling across oceans a lot, but the question is: Is is worth sacrificing the night sky for astronomers over?
Yes, but you're already bandwidth constrained when getting grib files through a satphone which often means using coarser grids over a smaller area (constraining your options) less frequently. Not the largest limitation, but better bandwidth would be useful.
As you point out, it's largely a value judgement between worldwide fast internet and ground based optical astronomy and it's one I'm conflicted about. I comfort myself with the thought that because of the expense these constellations either will bring internet access to large numbers of people justifying continuing satellite replacement or they'll fail and the satellites will be gone sooner rather than later, but as I say, I'm conflicted.
As you point out, it's largely a value judgement between worldwide fast internet and ground based optical astronomy and it's one I'm conflicted about. I comfort myself with the thought that because of the expense these constellations either will bring internet access to large numbers of people justifying continuing satellite replacement or they'll fail and the satellites will be gone sooner rather than later, but as I say, I'm conflicted.
This is crazy. Why do you need fast internet away from ground based infrastructure?
Are you just acting dumb or trolling? Because its easy to come up with 100s of reasons why you would want internet in those places. You can't seriously claim you don't see the need for that.
Are you just acting dumb or trolling? Because its easy to come up with 100s of reasons why you would want internet in those places. You can't seriously claim you don't see the need for that.
What you need and what you want are vastly different. Off course I want fast internet wherever I am, but I don’t need it. And I’m certainly not willing to sacrifice the night sky for astronomers for it.
I have disposable income, most of what I do I don't 'need'. So yes, I want faster internet, period. Now if you want to morally shame me for not living like a month that is fine.
You make it sound as if a cloud of eternal darkness will rise. Some parts of astronomers will have a somewhat higher rate of bad signals, that they are already having to work around anyway. And we can iteratively improve both sides to make it less of a problem.
At the same time this change will help drive 10x more science overall by the simple economics of scale the space industry will reach.
You make it sound as if a cloud of eternal darkness will rise. Some parts of astronomers will have a somewhat higher rate of bad signals, that they are already having to work around anyway. And we can iteratively improve both sides to make it less of a problem.
At the same time this change will help drive 10x more science overall by the simple economics of scale the space industry will reach.
About 90% of Australia too
Most airlines will end up using it to stream telemetry as a backup and for areas where primary telemetry communication channels aren't viable. IIRC, it doesn't work near the poles but for everywhere else it would be good for knowing the last position when a flight vanishes.
[deleted]
east texas
Yes, we know: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1228598015247536129
> @elonmusk: albedo will drop significantly on almost every successive launch
> @elonmusk: albedo will drop significantly on almost every successive launch
"Albedo" sounds like visible light. That's fine for those guys. Then there's x-ray and above, and infrared- and radio- below. Doubt they'll be able to make those sats soak up all EM radiation. And a few thousand of them will also be bouncing ground-based signals back down in all directions ... forget about isolation from earth-based sigs in basins.
I don't recall any beforehand news of this being publicly discussed.
I don't recall any beforehand news of this being publicly discussed.
"Funding secured."
I don't think TSLA would have a lot of trouble securing their $420 funding, given the current $800 stock price.
That’s missing the point completely.
Yes:
1) Future sats will continue to get progressively lower albedo
2) The sats brightness is much higher in their "orbit raising" phase then their "service" phase.
1) Future sats will continue to get progressively lower albedo
2) The sats brightness is much higher in their "orbit raising" phase then their "service" phase.
(Not sure I should respond if this is a troll attempt) but they’re def working on it. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1228598015247536129
SpaceX should put some telescopes into orbit for public use as a goodwill gesture here.
Is shoveling so much trash over non-american land actually legal?
Explicitly so by the outer space treaty.
Not that these launches are launching trash, or launching very much in the grand scheme of things either.
Not that these launches are launching trash, or launching very much in the grand scheme of things either.
How many satellites currently orbit the earth? Aren’t they planning to launch a thousand or two? That’s a pretty substantial amount of things!
There are currently roughly 5000 satellites in orbit (per wikipedia). I don't have good stats on those 5000 satellites but I believe they are on average substantially bigger than the starlink satellites.
Either way, a few thousand things spread out over the surface area of the earth is practically nothing.
Either way, a few thousand things spread out over the surface area of the earth is practically nothing.
> Either way, a few thousand things spread out over the surface area of the earth is practically nothing.
and the surface of a sphere at the altitude they're orbiting at is even larger. and the satellites are all spread across a variety of altitudes, relative to their size.
and the surface of a sphere at the altitude they're orbiting at is even larger. and the satellites are all spread across a variety of altitudes, relative to their size.
Satellites already have a nontrivial effort put into keeping their orbits from colliding with each other. Increasing that number by 50% is not going to be easy.
Starlink sats are all in LEO, way below the rest of the satellites currently in orbit
there's other stuff in low orbits, but contrary to the claim, low earth orbits aren't carefully planned. you ask for a rough altitude, and then you get whatever you get, because you probably don't have anything on board for adjusting your orbit.
it's up in geosynchronous where things are carefully planned, and the spacecraft can adjust their orbits, and do lots of long term station-keeping.
it's up in geosynchronous where things are carefully planned, and the spacecraft can adjust their orbits, and do lots of long term station-keeping.
First, I don't think space is either American or Non-American land :)
Second, I imagine outer space treaty covers this in much similar way that treaties governing international waters do.
Third, to a certain degree "satellite trash" is in the eye of beholder - I don't think there's any more or less legality in this, than in ISS, TV and comms satellites, GPS, etc all flying all around the world.
Second, I imagine outer space treaty covers this in much similar way that treaties governing international waters do.
Third, to a certain degree "satellite trash" is in the eye of beholder - I don't think there's any more or less legality in this, than in ISS, TV and comms satellites, GPS, etc all flying all around the world.
No one wants to get into a real estate battle in space. At least not yet. Maybe some day it will make sense to some nation but right now fighting that battle is a negative sum game.
Nobody owns space.
They just follow the uber/airbnb model -- do it quickly before the regulation catches up and it is too late to fix the damage.
It's really pretty bad: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-curse-of-elon-musk...
At the very least, there should be some kind of international treaties governing this. The night sky is a common good.
At the very least, there should be some kind of international treaties governing this. The night sky is a common good.
It's a matter of perspective.
I know people living in remote and even not so remote areas for whom cheap and easy internet access would literally be a live changer, and who wouldn't care less about astronomers having their work more difficult as a consequence, because, again, it would be a literal life-changing event for them in terms of personal safety, agriculture, income or education.
I know people living in remote and even not so remote areas for whom cheap and easy internet access would literally be a live changer, and who wouldn't care less about astronomers having their work more difficult as a consequence, because, again, it would be a literal life-changing event for them in terms of personal safety, agriculture, income or education.
Where, just out of curiosity?
Who will pay for that big complicated ball of light streaks so that the internet will become cheap?
Is it those rural users currently aren't profitable enough to supply otherwise?
Is it those rural users currently aren't profitable enough to supply otherwise?
There's a lot of misinformation about how visible Starlink is. The satellites are barely visible (and only in dark skies) in their operational orbits. Next-gen versions (with albedo reductions, which they've started experimenting with) will likely be operationally invisible entirely. This doesn't mean it won't be an issue for astronomy with incredibly sensitive instruments from which almost nothing can hide. SpaceX is working with the astronomy community to try to improve the situation for (especially) ground survey campaigns.
As far as who will pay for it... SpaceX has lower launch costs than anyone else by a significant fraction as well as lower satellite costs (likely by a similar fraction). There are tens or perhaps (globally) hundreds of millions of rural users who these constellations would help, as well as some fraction of more urban users.
Satellite internet already several billion in annual revenues from rural areas, in spite of the terrible service and high (expendable) launch costs. It doesn't take much for SpaceX to be profitable here; being a satellite service provider historically is much more lucrative than being a launch provider. The main unproven hurdle I see is user terminals, not the constellation itself.
As far as who will pay for it... SpaceX has lower launch costs than anyone else by a significant fraction as well as lower satellite costs (likely by a similar fraction). There are tens or perhaps (globally) hundreds of millions of rural users who these constellations would help, as well as some fraction of more urban users.
Satellite internet already several billion in annual revenues from rural areas, in spite of the terrible service and high (expendable) launch costs. It doesn't take much for SpaceX to be profitable here; being a satellite service provider historically is much more lucrative than being a launch provider. The main unproven hurdle I see is user terminals, not the constellation itself.
The launch costs are nowhere near the most expensive part. By using leo they have cornered themselves into using technology that won't be available to consumers.
Competitors OneWeb are using the same technology and have been more open about their user terminals. They claim $15 for a ~256-element phased array antenna: https://spacenews.com/wyler-claims-breakthrough-in-low-cost-...
Even if off by an order of magnitude, that's well within the price range of consumer terminals.
Even if off by an order of magnitude, that's well within the price range of consumer terminals.
Oneweb is not using the same technology. They're both using phased array, but SpaceX couldn't solve the low price point like oneweb, so they have it mounted on a motor. That will surely increase cost and reduce longevity.
Oneweb is another story, and regardless of their antenna, it's not clear how they're going to monetize.
Oneweb is another story, and regardless of their antenna, it's not clear how they're going to monetize.
They're both using phased array. The motorized mount is only for pointing optimization during the installation process; it's not going to be constantly motoring around. (and personally, I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX drops that eventually... they're trying to minimize installation costs to lower than current satellite dishes so the customer or unskilled worker can basically just plop it in the ground without adjustment while still optimizing the signal.)
Whether or not SpaceX "couldn't solve" the low price point is unknown. I'd be skeptical of anyone who claims they can't do it. Don't be too willing to buy OneWeb's PR. "Special sauce" is marketing speak. Execution is what matters. (This works both ways... OneWeb will eventually be using reusable rockets--i.e. from Blue Origin and others--like SpaceX.)
Whether or not SpaceX "couldn't solve" the low price point is unknown. I'd be skeptical of anyone who claims they can't do it. Don't be too willing to buy OneWeb's PR. "Special sauce" is marketing speak. Execution is what matters. (This works both ways... OneWeb will eventually be using reusable rockets--i.e. from Blue Origin and others--like SpaceX.)
> The motorized mount is only for pointing optimization during the installation process; it's not going to be constantly motoring around.
Please cite a source on that one. If they're putting a motor on just for installation to point to roughly the right spot, that's a ton of money spent on a motor for a single-use item. That will again point to it not being a consumer product. What's more likely is the motor is making up for the poor scan loss of the cheaper phased array.
Please cite a source on that one. If they're putting a motor on just for installation to point to roughly the right spot, that's a ton of money spent on a motor for a single-use item. That will again point to it not being a consumer product. What's more likely is the motor is making up for the poor scan loss of the cheaper phased array.
But a one-time-use, non-precision motor is pretty inexpensive. A precision motor that has to run 24/7 outside in the elements is super expensive.
Musk is trying to get rid of the $100 cost of professional installation by substituting with a $10 motor. I'm not sure it'll be successful (I wouldn't be surprised if professional installation still ends up happening and they eventually delete the motors), but that is the plan. It's just to get a good view of the sky, not to scan. A reliable scanning motor would cost a lot more. (And they need to track multiple satellites at once... can't do that with a single array steered by a motor, has to be beam-steered.)
Source is here: "Looks like a thin, flat, round UFO on a stick. Starlink Terminal has motors to self-adjust optimal angle to view sky. Instructions are simply: - Plug in socket - Point at sky These instructions work in either order. No training required." https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/12145487640542167...
Musk is trying to get rid of the $100 cost of professional installation by substituting with a $10 motor. I'm not sure it'll be successful (I wouldn't be surprised if professional installation still ends up happening and they eventually delete the motors), but that is the plan. It's just to get a good view of the sky, not to scan. A reliable scanning motor would cost a lot more. (And they need to track multiple satellites at once... can't do that with a single array steered by a motor, has to be beam-steered.)
Source is here: "Looks like a thin, flat, round UFO on a stick. Starlink Terminal has motors to self-adjust optimal angle to view sky. Instructions are simply: - Plug in socket - Point at sky These instructions work in either order. No training required." https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/12145487640542167...
Trust me -- it's NOT inexpensive. Maybe your definition of inexpensive is different from mine, but adding $20-$30 onto the cost of every install is a massive expense, especially when you still have to send a trained installer out to do it. You can't rely on an end user to do it since there are all kinds of issues with placement/blockage/etc. If you choose to ignore that, you spend more money on customer support to help them install it. Notice Elon doesn't say that end users will do it. He just said no training required, just like you don't need training to install tiles in your house either.
> There are tens or perhaps (globally) hundreds of millions of rural users who these constellations would help, as well as some fraction of more urban users.
indeed, even if you have a ground link, something radio based makes a spectacular backup. even if you've got one good high speed link available, it's unlikely you've got two whose failures are even slightly decorrlated.
indeed, even if you have a ground link, something radio based makes a spectacular backup. even if you've got one good high speed link available, it's unlikely you've got two whose failures are even slightly decorrlated.
Based on the prices I've been hearing, yes. $100/month or less for a GB/s connection shared between dozens of houses or more. Or an astute entrepreneur will create a cybercafe or resell it. The small businessmen can also afford it (since they already have satellite TVs), and they stand to make the most from it financially. The possibilities are many.
And it's not a problem of profitability for some, it's a problem of availability. Some could afford what their urban compatriots pay for internet, but that's simply not possible.
And it's not a problem of profitability for some, it's a problem of availability. Some could afford what their urban compatriots pay for internet, but that's simply not possible.
Yes! I live 90 minutes from Washington DC and have no land-based Internet access. Our community of 59,000 has probably just 65% true broadband coverage, from one cable provider. The FCC maps are a lie, they show my home and my neighbors as having access.
> there should be some kind of international treaties governing this
There are
There are
They've done a bit, enough that the public won't be severely affected. But as it stands: no, the techbros will simply kill large parts of ground based astronomy to stream gifs to rural California.
Astronomers are not very happy about it http://astronomersappeal.wordpress.com/2020/01/09/astronomer... but so far there is mostly resignation that big tech will indeed destroy the sky.
Astronomers are not very happy about it http://astronomersappeal.wordpress.com/2020/01/09/astronomer... but so far there is mostly resignation that big tech will indeed destroy the sky.
I think everyone making these comments is going to be eating their words in about 10 years when orbital telescopes are so cheap and plentiful that even third grade classrooms will be booking time for observations.
A comment below explained that we don’t have the technical capabilities to launch a 30 meters diameter telescope in orbit. And we’ll probably not have that capability in 10 years either. The extremely large telescope being build in the Atacama desert is almost 40 meters in diameter.
Sure maybe it can be fun for a third grader to look into images made for them by a cheep satellite telescope, but professional astronomers will continue to need the larger telescopes that remain technologically impossible to lunch into space for the next decade, or few.
Sure maybe it can be fun for a third grader to look into images made for them by a cheep satellite telescope, but professional astronomers will continue to need the larger telescopes that remain technologically impossible to lunch into space for the next decade, or few.
Will you also claim that cheaper transistors will lead to more compilers? Because that's the sort of thing you just claimed.
Every phone on the planet has at least one compiler built in.
So you measure the number of programs by the number of binary copies?
Without wanting to get involved in the purpose of your rhetorical question (the purpose being some kind of analogy to the StarLink situation)...
How many compilers were there back in the 60s? By codebase or by install count, your choice. Hundreds of codebases and tens of thousands of installs?
How about now? Tens of thousands of codebases and billions of installs?
Do you think this could have happened without lowering the cost of transistors pretty hugely? (circa 3e7-fold price decrease in 50 years)
Seems to me that lowering the cost of transistors DOES increase the number of compilers, whether by counting the number of distinct codebases, or by counting number of users, or counting number of installed copies, or number of times executed, or whatever.
How many compilers were there back in the 60s? By codebase or by install count, your choice. Hundreds of codebases and tens of thousands of installs?
How about now? Tens of thousands of codebases and billions of installs?
Do you think this could have happened without lowering the cost of transistors pretty hugely? (circa 3e7-fold price decrease in 50 years)
Seems to me that lowering the cost of transistors DOES increase the number of compilers, whether by counting the number of distinct codebases, or by counting number of users, or counting number of installed copies, or number of times executed, or whatever.
Here's the logic: If space launches are expensive, you spend more on your satellite to make it worthwhile. Give it more features, etc. Then spend even more to make it extremely reliable, because replacing it would also be expensive (both the launch and the hardware itself). If launches are cheap and routine, you can just launch a cheap simple satellite for each type of sensor you want, and even if it fails you can launch backups (or just activate stand-bys already in orbit). You can even aggregate the sensor data from a swarm of smaller satellites to generate the view of a single large virtual telescope, potentially bigger than anything you could construct on the ground.
Right, plus when launches are cheap and routine we can actually start assembling larger scale projects in orbit.
I'm sure you know rural California is not the only place without stable and fast internet access. And while that is one usage that will probably dominate in the developed world, have you considered the possibilities in Africa, Asia and the oceans?
Any word on when the Starlink service becomes available?
From what I've gathered:
They should have enough satellites in the sky, at the right positions, to start offering limited service around the start of July. This is based off of Elon's statement that they need 6 launches worth of satellites, educated guesses on launch dates, assuming that satellites need to move into their operational positions after that 6th launch, and will take the same amount of time to do so as previous launches.
They hope to be ready to help out with emergency service connectivity this hurricane season, which starts roughly speaking in August. That gives them around a months buffer, which sounds reasonable.
They don't seem to yet be making huge moves to get ground stations up and running, advertising to consumers, etc. This leads me to believe that the initial service will not be consumer oriented (probably as they work out the kinks). We know they're interested in emergency services, and we know the military is interested, these are likely to be higher paying and more forgiving customers to start with since they aren't competing with traditional ISPs at all. For them, somewhat unreliable service is better than no service.
They should have enough satellites in the sky, at the right positions, to start offering limited service around the start of July. This is based off of Elon's statement that they need 6 launches worth of satellites, educated guesses on launch dates, assuming that satellites need to move into their operational positions after that 6th launch, and will take the same amount of time to do so as previous launches.
They hope to be ready to help out with emergency service connectivity this hurricane season, which starts roughly speaking in August. That gives them around a months buffer, which sounds reasonable.
They don't seem to yet be making huge moves to get ground stations up and running, advertising to consumers, etc. This leads me to believe that the initial service will not be consumer oriented (probably as they work out the kinks). We know they're interested in emergency services, and we know the military is interested, these are likely to be higher paying and more forgiving customers to start with since they aren't competing with traditional ISPs at all. For them, somewhat unreliable service is better than no service.
The soft-launch of service this year is only expected to cover northern Canada and the south of South America.
I've seen this simulation of what initial coverage should look like (ignoring ground stations):
https://streamable.com/3lbqj
Southern Canada/Northern US is where I presume they will actually do testing, but they should be able to provide reasonable-ish (eyeballing at >80%) uptime across most of the world provided they can get ground stations.
They'll continue to launch satellites past the first 6 launches too, so coverage should dramatically improve by the end of the year compared to a June or August launch.
https://streamable.com/3lbqj
Southern Canada/Northern US is where I presume they will actually do testing, but they should be able to provide reasonable-ish (eyeballing at >80%) uptime across most of the world provided they can get ground stations.
They'll continue to launch satellites past the first 6 launches too, so coverage should dramatically improve by the end of the year compared to a June or August launch.
Supposedly this fall in the US. That is according to people I've talked to on /r/starlink
Question isn't so much "when" as it is "where".
For now, the sats will depend on ground stations to signal relay, until there are enough satellites (few thousand) to have them communicate between them via laser.
For now, the sats will depend on ground stations to signal relay, until there are enough satellites (few thousand) to have them communicate between them via laser.
I love how the headline isn't "SpaceX has more operating satellites in orbit than any other company." or "SpaceX launches 240 satellites in 90 days." it is "SpaceX fails to land the booster stage on their latest flight."
That is pretty amazing to me.
That is pretty amazing to me.
This says that Planet Labs has over 300 satellites: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/private-company-launches-la...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starlink Shows 302 Starlink satellites although only 240 are v1.0, next month with the Starlink 6 mission it will be moot :-)
The Tall Poppy Syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
Watched the launch this morning from the Saturn V stands at KSC, wow!
Also discussed here I think: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22348251
[deleted]
Since when is 32MB of GIFs on a webpage OK?
Converting GIF to MP4 creates a much better user experience and lowers file size:
ffmpeg -i input.gif -movflags faststart -pix_fmt yuv420p -vf "scale=trunc(iw/2)*2:trunc(ih/2)*2" output.mp4That makes a basic MPEG-4 video file, you probably want to specify h.264 by adding these switches:
-codec:v libx264 -preset slow -crf 23
Increase "crf" for a smaller file, decrease it for better quality.
-codec:v libx264 -preset slow -crf 23
Increase "crf" for a smaller file, decrease it for better quality.
[deleted]
It's absurd that they embedded long videos as animated GIFs. I wanted to fast-forward to see the failed landing, but the "video", being a GIF, couldn't be skipped ahead.
I wonder why browsers don't give you the ability to control gifs, at least by right clicking -> "show advanced controls" or something like that.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. I agree, it would be nice to be able to pause/rewind/fast-forward/speed/slow animated GIFs. I don't want to encourage this abusive use of GIFs, but sometimes I want to control even short animated GIFs, to see individual frames or something. I have a plugin that disables autoplay, and stops animated GIFs from looping endlessly, but it'd be nice to pause and rewind.
Pretty standard on many image boards nowadays. Though usually they would just call it .gif and it really is a mp4 or webm.
Maybe the URL can be replaced with something more decent than techcrunch, like Arstechnica: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/spacex-making-rocket...
Most chan-style image boards are honest about the file formats they use, no pretending about webms being gifs.
[deleted]
Take a look at the network tab for your average site with a 'hero' at the top.
Crying can be therapeutic, I am told.
Crying can be therapeutic, I am told.
How did it affect you? I just loaded the page on my three year old smartphone, and didn’t even notice the extra bandwidth or CPU usage.
OTH, I'm connecting from a ship in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with metered data. I regret loading that page.
Unlock origin. Go to settings. Look for "Default Behaviour". Under it, you'll find an option to block media larger than any size you choose.
I put 100KB for mine.
Also, you can install the Firefox extension called Video Image Block. It's a real data saver.
Lastly, look up bandwidth hero. Can help compress images on a server before it gets to you. I'm using free heroku tier for mine.
I put 100KB for mine.
Also, you can install the Firefox extension called Video Image Block. It's a real data saver.
Lastly, look up bandwidth hero. Can help compress images on a server before it gets to you. I'm using free heroku tier for mine.
On the plus side, in a couple years you'll have a Starlink 600mbps spot beam all to yourself.
Where are you based exactly? I'm researching time off from Auckland for winter and seems like Nuie, Fiji, New Caledonia, vanuatu, Tonga, Rarotonga got somewhat acceptable rates for work (Raro being worst).
The fact that it has terrible color rendering and it is 20x the size of what would have been a video with proper colors is very much embarrassing.
I'm in an AirBnB in the countryside, it saturated the available bandwidth whilst showing me a bad quality dithered video at around 1FPS
Sounds okay to me. Seems like a minor deal.
It's senseless.
It makes a lot of sense – they wanted to show an animation and most people can load it.
It doesn't make sense, because 1) everybody who can load a gif can load an mp4 too. 2) an mp4 can actually be loaded by more people, because it isn't a senseless waste of bandwidth.
We have different definitions of "make sense". It makes sense why they would embed a GIF, because it is easier to do, more broadly compatible, and well-understood.
It's not surprising someone would trade off bandwidth for this.
I also think MP4 is better, it just makes sense to me why someone would use a GIF.
It's not surprising someone would trade off bandwidth for this.
I also think MP4 is better, it just makes sense to me why someone would use a GIF.
mp4's can be embedded just as easily as gifs, are compatible with everything under the sun except for obscure RMS-approved FOSS distributions, and are 'understood' as well as anything (whatever that means.)
I can't think of a single rational reason to use a gif rather than an mp4 for something like this. The reason it's done is because some people are old dogs who can't learn new tricks. There is a good reason sites like reddit will transcode user-uploaded gifs to either mp4s or webms (the later of which isn't supported by Safari, but mp4 has no such problem.)
I can't think of a single rational reason to use a gif rather than an mp4 for something like this. The reason it's done is because some people are old dogs who can't learn new tricks. There is a good reason sites like reddit will transcode user-uploaded gifs to either mp4s or webms (the later of which isn't supported by Safari, but mp4 has no such problem.)
I believe they cannot be embedded as easily as GIFs, especially in a publication's CMS or when posting on a social media site.
If you are writing the raw video tag yourself and all the appropriate attributes, it is still not as easy as an image tag.
If you are writing the raw video tag yourself and all the appropriate attributes, it is still not as easy as an image tag.
If your webmaster wants to use a 32MB gif because he can't be bothered to figure out how to embed an mp4, fire him on the spot. Serving up 32MB of gif to every user who visits the page because you can't figure out the <video> tag is inexcusable. This is very far from rocket science.
Sigh.
That's like 5 coffees worth of bandwidth in some countries, especially where mobile data is concerned.
It's pretty annoying for people on devices without unlimited data
It's just wasteful.
If i clicked that link on my phone, i would have used up 10% of my data budget for the month.
Twirrim(2)
During every launch the hosts on the stream state that an unfortunate unexpected loss of signal happened but since the stream is stable before and after payload separation, this would be surprising. One might have thought that the vehicle was just at an unfortunate point in the trajectory where no connection was actually possible but today's payload separation event was far earlier and the video cut off anyways.
It is a bit surprising since the mechanism does not seem that sophisticated.