> The video you linked talks about using normal user terminals as relays. A couple of those won't be full bandwidth, but your mid-ocean service wouldn't need to be full bandwidth.
If you see my comment and others, using user terminals as relays is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. The EIRP/GT of those terminals will likely be very low, and that single relay will cut the bandwidth significantly. They also have much lower availability than a gateway, which makes the routing decisions harder.
> I strongly disagree.
What beam size do you think they're using? It's not really a question of IF they want to. Doing so on a cheap terminal can easily break FCC interference guidelines due to sidelobes, thus making it not their decision. That's the reason why these systems design for a very specific elevation limit from the user side, because anything else would either have too poor performance at the detriment of the entire satellite, or it's illegal if you're transmitting where you shouldn't. The performance degradation is very serious as well. It can be as bad as a single user consuming 10x more satellite resources than a nominal user, just because they're outside of the coverage of the beam.
So I realize where you're coming from in that they can do it, but I guarantee given the link budgets and cost-benefit tradeoff, it's simply not worth it to cover that far off boresight.
This is clearly not representative of starlink, but rather a GEO constellation. But the same concept applies: they will have tiny 0dB contours, and it rapidly falls after that. Serving users outside of the main contours, while it might be feasible given their antennas, is a massive hit to capacity on the entire constellation.
By the way, I think this dialogue is good and neither of us are going to convince each other. I think we will have to wait and see a year from now and revisit these comments.
Are the FCC interference guidelines exactly the same in the middle of the ocean?
And for what it's worth I looked up one of the licensing sheets earlier and it talked about the allowed signal strength below 25 degrees tapering off by 15dB. That's not enough to stop you from having a signal.
> too poor performance at the detriment of the entire satellite
> Serving users outside of the main contours, while it might be feasible given their antennas, is a massive hit to capacity on the entire constellation.
I think you're agreeing with me here.
It might cost a lot of the satellite's performance, which is why you wouldn't do it over land, and why it would be even less reasonable to include it in the simple simulation you linked.
But satellites over the ocean have nothing better to do with most of their capacity.
> By the way, I think this dialogue is good and neither of us are going to convince each other. I think we will have to wait and see a year from now and revisit these comments.
I'm fine stopping here, but revisiting in a year probably wouldn't help. There is a huge difference between what they can do, and what they care enough to do. Servicing ships that are more than 300 miles offshore, but not too much more, is definitely not a priority.
If you see my comment and others, using user terminals as relays is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. The EIRP/GT of those terminals will likely be very low, and that single relay will cut the bandwidth significantly. They also have much lower availability than a gateway, which makes the routing decisions harder.
> I strongly disagree.
What beam size do you think they're using? It's not really a question of IF they want to. Doing so on a cheap terminal can easily break FCC interference guidelines due to sidelobes, thus making it not their decision. That's the reason why these systems design for a very specific elevation limit from the user side, because anything else would either have too poor performance at the detriment of the entire satellite, or it's illegal if you're transmitting where you shouldn't. The performance degradation is very serious as well. It can be as bad as a single user consuming 10x more satellite resources than a nominal user, just because they're outside of the coverage of the beam.
So I realize where you're coming from in that they can do it, but I guarantee given the link budgets and cost-benefit tradeoff, it's simply not worth it to cover that far off boresight.
Look at a picture like this: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Schwarz5/publica...
This is clearly not representative of starlink, but rather a GEO constellation. But the same concept applies: they will have tiny 0dB contours, and it rapidly falls after that. Serving users outside of the main contours, while it might be feasible given their antennas, is a massive hit to capacity on the entire constellation.
By the way, I think this dialogue is good and neither of us are going to convince each other. I think we will have to wait and see a year from now and revisit these comments.