Starlink News & Discussion Thread

[Anonymous No.10108540]

time for some /Starlink/ stuff

NEWS:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-starlink-insight/musk-shakes-up-spacex-in-race-to-make-satellite-launch-window-sources-idUSKCN1N50FC
>Musk had fired at least seven members of [Starlink's] senior management team at the Redmond, Washington, office, the culmination of disagreements over the pace at which the team was developing and testing its Starlink satellites, according to the two SpaceX employees with direct knowledge of the situation.
>Known for pushing aggressive deadlines, Musk quickly brought in new managers from SpaceX headquarters in California to replace a number of the managers he fired. Their mandate: Launch SpaceX’s first batch of U.S.-made satellites by the middle of next year
>The management shakeup followed in-fighting over pressure from Musk to speed up satellite testing schedules
>“[the ex-VP of Satellites] wanted three more iterations of test satellites,” one of the sources said. “Elon thinks we can do the job with cheaper and simpler satellites, sooner.”
>[The Tintin test satellites are] happy and healthy and we’re talking with them every time they pass a ground station, dozens of times a day.”
>SpaceX engineers have used the two test satellites to play online video games at SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, California and the Redmond office, the source said.
>“We were streaming 4k YouTube and playing ‘Counter-Strike: Global Offensive’ from Hawthorne to Redmond in the first week,” the person added.

New study about the feasibility of Starlink regarding network topology:
http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/starlink-draft.pdf
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdKNCBrkZQ4

[Anonymous No.10108547]

It won't be long before spacex is purchased by Boeing.

The implosion of his companies is now obvious to everyone.

[Anonymous No.10108551]

>>10108547
just start an interesting thread off with a bait post will you? ffs

[Anonymous No.10109053]

>>10108540
Musk firing dead weight, 99.9% of sci would fit into its category

[Anonymous No.10109082]

>>10109053
One of my favorite Elon tidbits:
>”Musk hired very smart people who had to prove their proficiency in personal interviews with him. Engineers stood atop the corporate totem pole, with everyone else behind. “SpaceX had what Elon called a high signal-to-noise ratio, meaning that people who added value were engineers. They were signal,” said Tim Hughes, the company’s general counsel. “And people who were nonengineers for the most part were noise”

Wew

[Anonymous No.10109087]

>>10109082
Dilbert would approve

[Anonymous No.10109272]

If he somehow pulls this off, he will be ruler of the world, then the system

[Anonymous No.10109280]

>>10109272
>tfw you realize Elon is really just an awkward hyperfocused dork who wants to rule Mars alongside Godqueen Grimes

all of the people criticizing him for being an evil capitalist / whatever just don't see the big picture

[Anonymous No.10109284]

Starlink is going to mess your balls up. Mess your brains up. Mess your birds up. Mess your bees up.

Probably. Still looking into what the up/downlink will look like.

[Anonymous No.10109294]

>>10109284
>it's an "anon thinks 10.7-12.7 GHz signals gives you brain cancer" episode

[Anonymous No.10109300]

>>10109284
individual users will be able to get 1 Gbps.
But, "free-space laser link speeds of 100 Gb/s or higher will be possible"

[Anonymous No.10109304]

11,000 satellites need to be launched in 9 years to abide by the FCC timeline requirements.
That's a lot of launches.

[Anonymous No.10109317]

>>10109284
Why are you on sci? Seriously just fuck off

[Anonymous No.10109318]

>>10109304
Bfr needed. Can house hundreds if not thousands of sats.

[Anonymous No.10109326]

>>10109318
not particularly. The satellites are still as big as a VW beetle. F9 can take like 40 at a time, I don't recall seeing calculations for BFR

[Anonymous No.10109350]

>>10109294
Worse than that.

[Anonymous No.10109356]

>>10109317
No. This isn't going away.

[Anonymous No.10109370]

>>10109356
What, your make believe problems?

Care to cite a source? I mean, this is sci after all, right?

[Anonymous No.10109376]

>>10109350

[Anonymous No.10109392]

>>10109280
I cannot blame him

[Anonymous No.10109395]

>"Elon thinks we can do the job with cheaper and simpler satellites, sooner.”
& he's right, I'd imagine. When you have literally thousands of identical (well the VLEO and MEO sats are slightly different) satellites to launch, then you can't really apply oldschool risk-adverse mindsets to the whole operation

[Anonymous No.10109396]

>>10109370
The Russians have always had a more open interest in electricity and magmentism's effect on biological systems. During their electrosleep research peak in the late 50's, ~10GHz at athermal intensities, modulated in certain ways, was found to be able to either induce sleep or spontaneously awaken subjects. Small animals could be brought out of deep REM or spindle sleep near instantly when the generator was turned on. They would have paralysis and spasming of their esophagus until they suffocated on themselves. This, along with 1Hz fields all the way down in the ELF range, was found to profoundly effect rhythmic slow activity in the hippocampus (theta rhythm).

You ever wonder why you're so immediately resolute that this stuff dun do nuthin? I mean really, why? Because everyone else says it? Do you know what the kT paradox is? Do you know anything about cellular generation and transduction of highly periodic signals? I bet you don't, and these are both central parts of this field and its history, yet you seem to just assume there's nothing there but heating.

Now you have to admit, that's a bit bizarre. It's like some people with politics. If you say anything other than "Obama is good" they just shut right down to the point of almost rejecting that you're even there. It has to be those evil republicans stonewalling the black man, it just has to be. It's the same brainwashed behavior, and it's bizarre to be living in this. I'm getting real sick of everyone else residing in a different (less true) reality. This shit is established fact, this is the way it works, and there isn't a damn thing you (or I) can do about it.

Refer to this post and particularly the mediafire link. I recently uploaded some documents which deal with these less everyday omnipresent frequencies.
>>/sci/thread/S10065303#p10065716

[Anonymous No.10109403]

>>10109396
>my source is a folder I made and posted on sci
>muh Russian experiments
>buzzwords
>”I know more than you WAKE UP SHEEPLE”

Jesus Christ you’re almost as bad as Jon

[Anonymous No.10109415]

>>10109403
Sorry you don't get a convenient .gov link for declassified documents and symposium proceedings from the 70's that were never formally digitized.

Some of the papers were originally collected by Zorach Glaser throughout his career, and then sat in storage. They were scanned by Magda Havas, but her links / hosting occasionally break and I thought her highlighting was a bit excessive. The EPA and NASA's documents are hosted on their site, but 4chan flags links to nasa pages as spam, and I don't see any reason to link the EPA stuff directly, etc. Indexes like the DTIC can be useful. So feel free to hunt around for all these on your own, for whatever reason.

Or you can stop making up excuses and do some real reading.

[Anonymous No.10109421]

>>10109415
>lol I can't actually post links to my sources abloo abloo :((((((( just believe me I promise !!!!!

lmao

[Anonymous No.10109428]

everyone pay attention:

1) read this http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/31625/InTech-Evaluations_of_international_expert_group_reports_on_the_biological_effects_of_radiofrequency_fields.pdf
2) ignore the idiot trying to convince you all that cell phones will melt your innards

that is all. Now stop giving him (you)'s

[Anonymous No.10109450]

>>10109428
I explained the problems with that report to you the last time around.

Starts around:
>>/sci/thread/S10065303#p10067873

Most directly:
>>/sci/thread/S10065303#p10069595

[Anonymous No.10109549]

>>10109450
Is this a joke?

[Anonymous No.10109553]

>>10109549
No.

[Anonymous No.10109557]

>>10109549
I dunno. He's put an awful lot of effort into it.
Hmmm, you'd think if EM radiation harmed people, lawyers would be scrambling to start gigantic billion-dollar settlement funds from all sorts of governments and tech companies, since they're OBVIOUSLY hiding the truth (after all, our moron friend here thinks it's blatantly obvious that cell phones will jellofy your innards in a snap).

It must big a great big Conspiracy. I wonder if we have a board for that sort of discussion?

>>10109553
>he STILL hasn't posted a single study ITT
and no, random 60s soviet """"experiments'"" and BioInitiative """"research""" doesn't count, you autist

lmao

[Anonymous No.10109561]

>>10109553
Then that is incredibly sad and you should move boards to /x/.
>>10109557
I won't reply to him anymore

[Anonymous No.10109575]

>>10109557
Insurance companies distanced themselves from wireless providers and electric utilities in the 90's. Similar to other matters which got started in WW2 the RF issue started off as industry and military conspiring to protect their shared interests and shield each other from future litigation. We also wanted to preemptively protect our use of radar in installations abroad. You can read about these in the mediafire link. One in Adey 2002 [...], and more in the defense intelligence agency document I titled Adams 1976. I'll copy and paste a post I made on that.

"
To be more explicit about some of the key moments of our history and the genesis of this matter, one of the clearest lines ever written was in a 1976 document titled "BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (RADIOWAVES AND MICROWAVES) EURASIAN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES" by the Defense Intelligence Agency, distributed widely to all other Western governments. On page VII it states simply:
"If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military functions."

Whether or not concerns that the Soviet standard wasn't uniformly enforced, here we are to this day lacking any limits on peak power (we time average over 6 minutes) and still with a safety standard 100x higher than the USSR's standard introduced in the 50's. It used to be 1000x until a short time ago. And even at their levels Russia's RNCNIRP is having great concerns over children with cell phones and use of wifi.

That document is in the mediafire link Microwave News' historical print archives are also interesting, but high signal to noise and sometimes quite dense.
https://microwavenews.com/back-issues
"

Others:
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF

As for the rest of your post, you haven't responded to the studies I posted in the linked thread. Why would I give you even more? What do ya want for nothin'?

[Anonymous No.10109576]

>>10109561
that's a good plan. Starlink is cool and this thread needs more discussion about it.
Looking up some numbers online, it seems that the latency improvements will be worth ~$5-15b to high frequency traders. Wonder if they'll front some of the funds, in exchange for the first spots on the network?

[Anonymous No.10109588]

>>10109575
Well, linking that post might help.
>>/sci/thread/S10065303#p10065716
3 posts. It's not the most complete or bombarding wall of text I could put together, but I have something like 2500 papers to choose from. It's a lot, and at one point I thought of making an indexing system (and later found emf-portal had already done this), but never got around to it. It's a lot of work, it's time consuming, and I'm just too fatigued to bother when no one reads anything to begin with. I could just dump a list of the file names (author, date, paper title truncated to some number of characters) if you wanted, with a few recommendations.

Adey's statement to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002.

"
For more than 20 years, the USAF has aggressively asserted that microwave fields
have only one mode of biological interaction - through tissue heating. There has
been a consistent denial of nonthermal interactions, and as a corollary, that tissues
have no capacity to demodulate pulse- or amplitude-modulated microwave fields.
To ensure interservice conformity with this policy, a decade ago the USAF sought
and obtained Pentagon approval to physically uproot the separate microwave
medical research facilities of the US Army at Walter Reed Army Institute of
Research in Washington DC and the US Navy's facility at the Aeromedical
Laboratory at Pensacola, FL. Their personnel and facilities were transferred to
Brooks AFB in San Antonio TX.
At the same time, Brooks personnel heavily indoctrinated NATO member countries
with their thermal doctrine in a series of military conferences. This may be attributed
to their operation of high-powered radars at overseas locations and the pragmatic political
imperative of assuring foreign governments and their populations that, on the basis of
thermal models, these operations did not pose a health threat.
[...]

[Anonymous No.10109589]

>>10109588
[...]
Brooks AFB personnel have been equally aggressive in dominating development of
the US civilian safety guidelines. IEEE Subcommittee 28 is charged with preparing
draft guidelines for submission to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
After a long career in thermoregulatory physiology at Yale University, Dr. Eleanor Adair
was appointed Chief Scientist at Brooks AFB. Her views on nonthermal interactions,
stated 13 years ago, have remained unchanged: "I've never seen one bit of scientific
evidence that ELF or microwave radiation has any nonthermal biological effects.
These findings are will-o'-the wisp."
(Discover Magazine, December, 1989).
Dr. Adair became chairperson of IEEE Subcommittee 28, and appointed a significant
number of like-minded scientists and engineers to the committee. During her tenure, the
committee developed position papers preliminary to completion of a draft proposal
for ANSI that are dismissive of all aspects of nonthermal interactions and
modulation-dependent effects, nor do they address problems of intermittent
exposure or cumulative dose.

The confirmed existence of nonthermal ELF and microwave interactions has become
clear, in observations ranging from human cognitive performance and human EEG sleep
records, to cell and molecular effects on gene expression, enzyme activity, and
permeability of the blood brain barrier. Though not yet conclusive, there is strong but
not yet unequivocal evidence supporting modulation-dependent interactions,
including alterations in human sleep EEG power spectra by pulse modulated mobile
phone fields, and an absence of effects of unmodulated (CW) fields of the same
average incident power.
The USAF position on nonthermal effects is entrenched and of long standing. But
the recent announcement from Brooks AFB of its plans for the Third International
Electromed 2003 Conference has therefore occasioned deep surprise and mistrust of

[Anonymous No.10109596]

>>10109589
[...]
any statements that the USAF may make re the PAVE PAWS operation. There has
been a complete about-face. The Meeting Announcement reads:

Third International Symposium on Nonthermal Medical/Biological
Treatments Using Electromagnetic Fields and Ionized Gases
Hosted
By
USAF Research Laboratory, Radio Frequency Radiation Branch,
Brooks AFB, Texas, June 11-13, 2003

In historic words, offered in another context, this is an incident that will live in infamy.
How stupid does the USAF think that the American public must be? If, in the eyes of the
USAF, nonthermal interactions with environmental electromagnetic fields can be
the basis of therapeutic interventions, why might they not occur as the result of
exposure to pulsed radar fields? And what might be the health effects in
consequence, for better or worse? And what does it say about the professional integrity
of the NRC Panel that it is apparently prepared to negotiate seriously with those
responsible for such scientific inconsistency?
[...]
At this point, it may be relevant to briefly summarize my qualifications in the fields
of radio physics and radio engineering. I am an elected Fellow of IEEE for my
contributions in the field of radiotelemetry. Essentially unaided, I designed, built and
successfully operated at my home a coherent radar system sufficiently sensitive to detect
echoes of my signals from the surface of the moon (Adey, 1969). The antenna involved a
180-element steerable, multibay Yagi-phased array. The coherent detection system
pioneered techniques recognized by authorities at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory as
the forerunner of modern broadband detection techniques."

Adey worked extensively with nasa (search their site), supervised the UCLA brain research institute, received millions in grants from the office of naval affairs and the department of energy over the course of his career on this topic matter. He also worked on the aptly named project Pandora.

[Anonymous No.10109601]

>>10108540
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdKNCBrkZQ4
God bless technology

[Anonymous No.10109603]

>>10109596
And I want to be very blunt here in stating that my purpose is to erode the incredulity which I believe to be unwarranted and manufactured, and which is the greatest barrier to effective discussion. The typical "go back to /x/" response is one of many manifestations of this. There's nothing /x/ about established biophysics and biological phenomena, and it's time we legitimately talked about it. You don't see these issues when it comes to transduction of the earth's geomagnetic field for magnetoreception and migratory bird navigation, nor arctic fox prey detection.

[Anonymous No.10109607]

>>10109603
go back to >>>/x/ fucktard
You’re shitting up a potentially interesting thread

[Anonymous No.10109612]

>>10109607
You're shitting up a potentially interesting planet.

[Anonymous No.10109646]

>>10109603
You have to go back >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10109650]

>>10109646
/sci/ is /x/ under a different heading. You're part of the proof.

[Anonymous No.10109654]

>not only will starlink BTFO huegsnet and Comcast, it’ll also make EM radiation alarmists run around crying

god bless Musk

[Anonymous No.10109775]

>>10109654
doesn't Starlink use lasers anyway?

[Anonymous No.10109779]

>>10109775
something like that for sat-sat communications. The whole frequency / etc list is in one of the FCC docs; I’ll post it tomorrow

[Anonymous No.10110458]

>>10108540
my first thought: we're going to need that space force. space traffic management is about to become a big deal with all these new massive satellite constellations and we'll need someone to deal with disaster management and security issues.

my second thought: it seems like alot of countries would immediately put all kinds of legal barriers to this, either to block it or to squeeze as much of the profit out of musk as they can

[Anonymous No.10110461]

>>10110458
what leverage could they possibly put on him?

[Anonymous No.10110484]

>>10110461
you need ground stations for this to work. ground stations require access to each country.

[Anonymous No.10110561]

>>10110484
No; that’s the OneWeb approach. Starlink is more point-to-point & doesn’t have that sort of necessary ground backbone

Anyone with the phased array receiver will be able to tune in.

[Anonymous No.10110591]

>>10110561
oh then they'll probably make the antennas highly illegal to own or add taxes/fees on to them so thick that it would make it unaffordable to the average user. or maybe they'll do like the UK and tax it and use the taxes to subsidize their local ISPs to make them competitive. the point is that local governments will find a way to fuck it over as much as possible.

[Anonymous No.10110602]

>>10110591
for sure; there will probably be built-in limits on the satellites to restrict access in certain areas. SpaceX will have to play ball with countries for the first few years... after all, china has a lot of leverage on Tesla with Gigafactory 3 permits etc