slowslownotbad t1_j5ohkr5 wrote
Reply to comment by Canal_Volphied in Starlink Is ‘Forced’ To Finally Start Caring About The System’s Light Pollution And Harm To Scientific Research by Albion_Tourgee
How else are you gonna get large quantities of data off an oil rig? Or a ship? Or stream high speed internet to an airplane?
USAF AWACS jets still process all their data on board with a huge crew, because they’re stuck with very slow bandwidth connections.
Hell, Starlink will soon be serving Antarctica. Currently they send data back via tapes, flown on airplanes.
Ihadanapostrophe t1_j5orids wrote
This is factually untrue. I was a radar tech on the AWACS.
They are quite literally using computers from the 1950s. Either 2 or 3 large cabinets for radar, depending on whether it's the -B or -C model.
There isn't any data that AWACS lacks processing power for. Certainly, there is no particular need for satellites (especially StarLink) for AWACS mission capability.
Any data shared from AWACS with other Blue Forces would go through something like JTIDS, which existed decades before StarLink.
Any other use would be standard data transfer/communication over military satellites.
slowslownotbad t1_j5qruft wrote
Yeah. The crew processes the data. With their brains.
Ideally you’d get that data off board with zero crew and process it at home. But as you know, a modern radar produces a huge amount of data.
USAF is looking as Wedgetail, but keep getting cold feet because of cost. They’d rather use drones, but data rate is a problem. Which Starlink will solve.
Ihadanapostrophe t1_j5quube wrote
Data rate is not the limiting factor. Power is. There are 2x200 KW klystron amplifiers pushing out those pings. Drones don't have that kind of power if you want them to loiter.
slowslownotbad t1_j5r4w88 wrote
Yeah, but if you replace that with a distributed drone system, each TR module on something modern like a Wedgetail is waaaaay lower power. Just need data uplink.
You could essentially do the job with a collection of fighter jet radars on small drones. The power draw on an APG-81 from an F-35 would be well within the capacity of a small turbine engine.
Also, satellite AWACS from a low orbit constellation can do a lot. Expect to see these kinds of payloads launching in the near future.
NLtbal t1_j5owv1q wrote
You are assuming air superiority which is simply not a guarantee in all AO situations, especially in proxy wars where an arms length doctrine is in place, or early days of any conflict when equipment is not yet in field.
Ihadanapostrophe t1_j5oz1lt wrote
What makes you assume that? How is whether or not AWACS is operating with air superiority going to change the capabilities? How does any of that change whether or not StarLink becomes useful to AWACS?
Have you flown on the plane? I have. AWACS is an air-to-air battle management/C2 platform. It provides a gigantic radar/IFF capability to allied pilots.
The biggest upgrade to AWACS computers was in the 90s when they went from 1 color to a full 6 colors! You have zero relevant information about this topic.
Canal_Volphied t1_j5ok9j2 wrote
> Hell, Starlink will soon be serving Antarctica. Currently they send data back via tapes, flown on airplanes.
Wrong. Satellite connection with Antarctica existed long before Starlink.
>McMurdo, being a major hub for climate science and geology, among other things, already had a fairly serious satellite uplink through a traditional provider. SpaceX isn’t the first or only one using space lasers for communication — NASA had the jump on them by a couple decades and is looking into it as a way to provide high-speed internet for Artemis.
slowslownotbad t1_j5ol6pi wrote
https://www.pilotfiber.com/blog/antarctica-internet
This is a more accurate description of satellite internet in Antarctica. Current bandwidth for the whole base is 1-3 mbps, versus ~300mbps with Starlink.
Canal_Volphied t1_j5olkse wrote
Yep, even more mentions of previously existing satellite connection.
Thank you for thoroughly demolishing your previous false claims of data tape only connection.
slowslownotbad t1_j5om6e9 wrote
I didn’t say only tapes. But think about it. Modern scientific datasets are massive. Thousands of gigabytes.
1mbps running 12h per day is less than 100 gigabytes per year. You’ll saturate it with day-to-day operational messages. No way you’re doing real science.
Not to mention quality of life for the staff. Nobody’s making video calls over Iridium.
Canal_Volphied t1_j5oqxd9 wrote
> I didn’t say only tapes.
You said that before Starlink Antarctica used physical tapes. You intentionally made zero mention of this pre-Starlink satellite connection.
osteologation t1_j5pp56q wrote
Traditional satellite internet might as well be nothing, as far as the average person is concerned.
slowslownotbad t1_j5qxx7y wrote
Yeah, cuz that’s how they get scientific data off the continent. Tapes.
[deleted] t1_j5op3tp wrote
[deleted]
foonix t1_j5ont4q wrote
Why are you arguing so vehemently over something so trivial? Obviously, the access wasn't zero, but just as obviously, 3 Mbps isn't going to cut it for a lot of applications.
SuperRette t1_j5qopzv wrote
Because it's moving the goalposts? I value integrity, and watching someone try to wiggle out of what they said is dishonest.
foonix t1_j5rtth7 wrote
What they said was honest. Trying to contest it was moving the goalpost.
> Hell, Starlink will soon be serving Antarctica. Currently they send data back via tapes, flown on airplanes.
This was a good-faith answer to the question. But then the person who asked the question flipped and tried to argue with it for no good reason.
> Wrong. Satellite connection with Antarctica existed long before Starlink.
That is moving the goalpost. They didn't say it didn't exist. They just said that they transport data physically. The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, their own citation shows that bandwidth was a scarce resource. It indirectly supports the claim they are arguing against.
Canal_Volphied t1_j5op5ga wrote
>Why are you arguing so vehemently over something so trivial?
Why do you care? What problem do you have with me outpointing out clumsy attempts at goalpost moving?
jiggamain t1_j5or8hi wrote
Go back and read the original comment, pls and stop being a contrarian jerk in life. Their first comment is clear and leaves room for both to be true. You come off like an ass with this comment, consider deleting? Will save others the time I wasted going back to reread (and will keep others from going back, rereading, and figuring out that your reading compression leaves something to be desired…
OriginalCompetitive t1_j5otj5z wrote
Don’t tell him to delete these asinine comments are the whole reason I read read it in the first place.
Canal_Volphied t1_j5oshl9 wrote
> Their first comment is clear and leaves room for both to be true.
No it's not. Stop trying to gaslight people. >You come off like an ass
Pot, kettle. Your comment is overly vulgar and hostile. Gonna put you on ignore now.
throwawayusername6k t1_j5ov0c1 wrote
Id say a focus laser that points toward the mainland or a single sattelite thats used just for this purpose.
With mainland you cant shoot lasers around the horizin but a single sattilite can do like 1/3 of the earth coverage
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments