Elon Musk - The Master thread

cricketo said:
Rural is indeed typically a low rf noise environment, but 5G is irrelevant there. 26+ Ghz just doesn't have the propagation characteristics practical for rural and tower density is quite low.
Click to expand...
Right. Those people will be using sub-6 GHz.
Implementing 5G on current 3G and 4G bands (2.1Ghz and below) won't yield any significant benefits.
Click to expand...
Other than latency.
Now when it comes to urban comms, what I was alluding to is antenna polarization. Terrestrial wireless, especially user equipment with omni antennas is just picking up all the noise.
Click to expand...
True on subscriber side. But 5G base stations are turning to phased array techniques (both TX and RX) to reduce noise. Also keep in mind that polarization, at absolute best, will give you only 3dB improvement.
Same issue with the sector antennas used on the base stations. Starlink user terminals may be picking up a bunch of noise when tracking satellites low above the horizon, but above certain elevation the noise should drop dramatically, unless of course the terminal is super close to the source.
Click to expand...
And when they are near the equator. All the incumbents up there in GEO are still pumping out lots of energy in Ka and Ku, and Starlink is going to have to do tricks to avoid them. And the tricks are doable but will reduce the Eb/No overall.
 
Now why would 5G be irrelevant rurally? I just got back from rural Texas where my 4gxlte I think you call it wasnt working as well as in the past. The locals say it was caused by 5G being made available. This in the Hill Country, agriculture, etc.
 
Dauntless said:
Now why would 5G be irrelevant rurally? I just got back from rural Texas where my 4gxlte I think you call it wasnt working as well as in the past. The locals say it was caused by 5G being made available. This in the Hill Country, agriculture, etc.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously average rural residents are telecom experts, so they'd know what's causing problems over there :mrgreen: What I was referring to is the fact rural areas often suffer from coverage issues that stem from low tower density and propagation issues (hills, woods). The low population density simply makes it non-lucrative to roll out such infrastructure there. Providers typically stick the towers along the major roads, but once you're off the beaten path you got nothing. T-Mobile should get better coverage by utilizing 600Mhz, but it's not dependent on 5G.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/17/tech/5g-technical-explainer/index.html

So you don't trust the local telecomm companies expertise? Who DO you trust? The smugly anonymous internet poster/expert?

It was their expectation that I'd been dependent on 3G taking up the slack for the lack of 4G nearby, which is getting replaced by 5G towers and 3G is doomed there. So you know better than they, you say.

Back to Elon, who has turned his attention to twitter.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/17/tech/elon-musk-jack-dorsey-twitter/index.html
 
Dauntless said:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/17/tech/5g-technical-explainer/index.html

So you don't trust the local telecomm companies expertise? Who DO you trust? The smugly anonymous internet poster/expert?
Click to expand...

You didn't say telecom, you said "locals." The stuff talked about in CNN article is correct, and is the same me and Bill posted about above.

It was their expectation that I'd been dependent on 3G taking up the slack for the lack of 4G nearby, which is getting replaced by 5G towers and 3G is doomed there. So you know better than they, you say.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not sure who is "they." What is your provider ?
 
cricketo said:
billvon said:
Depends where you are, right? In urban environments - definitely. (But urban environments also have the benefit of the huge capacity of mm-wave.) But in rural/suburban environments, where jammers are fewer, Eb/No will be higher, and retransmits will be fewer. (Which is also where Starlink shines, of course.)
Click to expand...
Implementing 5G on current 3G and 4G bands (2.1Ghz and below) won't yield any significant benefits. I am frequent to a location just 40 miles from Portland in the coastal range, not a single provider reaches there. Still waiting for the T-Mobile's 600Mhz roll out to test - Verizon's 700Mhz doesn't make it through despite tower being less than 5 miles away.
Click to expand...
I have been following the 5G technology closely on tech sites and even internet/mobile enthusiast forums, and to put it in a summarized general form, it looks like its possible to push about 50% more data via the existing sub 6Ghz bands/frequencies via 5G than 4G.
Sub 6Ghz is basically everything that 4G/3G today sits on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR_frequency_bands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_5G_NR_networks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G

LinusTechTips did a pretty good video recently show off how poorly the 5G FR2/"millimetre wave"/+24Ghz bands travel/penetrate things https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR_frequency_bands#Frequency_Range_2
https://youtu.be/4PLhxYIDwJs
[youtube]4PLhxYIDwJs[/youtube]

In Australia 600Mhz is partially used for digital TV via ground transmitter based free to air broadcast, the problem is FTA TV in Australia already uses a lot of spectrum and its not very efficiently used in my eyes, a lot of the commercial FTA TV networks just use it to broadcast cheesy shopping channels and other useless crap.

FTA TV in Australia starts at 177Mhz all the way up to 699Mhz, at 700Mhz it goes into mobile. I want the handful of TV transmitter sites that use 600Mhz for TV kicked off/reallocated and have the 600Mhz band freed up for 5G mobile like the USA/Canada/other countries.

I like some of the T-mobile YouTube videos talking up their 600Mhz band for 5G. I don't care how true of hyperbolic it is as we all know more spectrum means more wireless mobile internet available for the general public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QfTETsEWXs
[youtube]8QfTETsEWXs[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b723FHpPxn8
[youtube]b723FHpPxn8[/youtube]

More Tmobile talk-ups of 600mhz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N57iMd6G9mA https://youtu.be/CMuG1Q4FJOg?t=196 https://venturebeat.com/2019/12/05/t-mobiles-600mhz-5g-peaks-at-roughly-225mbps-but-there-are-caveats/ https://www.macrumors.com/2019/12/02/tmobile-launches-5g-network/

The CEO of Telstra, Australia's biggest mobile operator claims if you can get a 600Mhz antenna high enough (probably need a balloon) you can get it to reach 200km of distance.
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/telstra-pushes-for-long-range-5g-standards-to-suit-a-wide-brown-land-20180911-p50303.html
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3471483/telstra-eyes-more-tv-spectrum-for-mobile-services.html

A certain % of people in rural area's don't bother with government subsidised NBN internet because its "fixed address internet only" and cant be used for mobile phone calls, so they just get a mobile phone.
But it's the same problem here where the private telcos are only willing to install mobile cell base-stations if the government pays for most of it because its totally unviable investment for the private sector.

Unfortunately, they don't plan them at all to be fireproof (would cost extra money) so a lot the cell stations get burned in bush fires. They should make a 100meter no vegetation/trees law/rule around these mobile cell sites as this is literally the only technology a lot of rural people use to make a phone call for help, a lot of people are ditching the fixed land-line phones like everywhere else in the world.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2020-01-13/are-australias-telecommunication-up-to-the-new-kind-of-megafire/11860238

Here is a burned mobile base-station, they even placed a diesel generator next to it thinking the only issue it could possibly have is needing extra electricity during blackouts the fire will cause, but you can see all the burnt trees around it.
11860054-3x2-large.jpg

I have looked at a lot of mobile base-stations in bush/rural areas and most basically have trees brushing up against them, so its crazy and if anything deliberately wasting taxpayer money because they will get burned out eventually.

Also what has surprised me is it appears some folks don't like the idea of 600Mhz reallocation for 5G mobile from TV, I think they fear they might miss out on some FTA TV or something, which can't happen, also the rural broadcasters are begging to be bought out anyway because they are already going out of business due to the internet taking over and killing their TV ratings https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/prime-vows-to-push-on-for-seven-deal-after-it-was-blocked-by-bullies-20191219-p53lcv.html https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/ASX-PRT/
 
Good conversation, fit for some kids PHd thesis.

-methods
 
TheBeastie said:
I have been following the 5G technology closely on tech sites and even internet/mobile enthusiast forums, and to put it in a summarized general form, it looks like its possible to push about 50% more data via the existing sub 6Ghz bands/frequencies via 5G than 4G.
Sub 6Ghz is basically everything that 4G/3G today sits on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR_frequency_bands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_5G_NR_networks
Click to expand...
An important distinction is the NR in the list above. NR stands for "new radio" and you can indeed see improvements in speeds with sub6 5G NR. However, carriers (like AT+T) have a habit of saying they are "5G" when really all they are planning for is new mmwave links, without the new sub-6 radio. So it's important to get the details from the carrier of what they mean when they say 5G. (In fact, until recently AT+T has been claiming they have a service called "5G evolution" which is really just 4G LTE.)
 
Got this from elsewhere for the news on Elon's Starlink progress.
SpaceFlight Now ( https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ ) lists following launches:

  • Starlink 3 – 27 Jan
  • Starlink 4 – Early Feb
  • Starlink 5 – No earlier than (NET) 14 Feb
So that could be close to 360 satellites in orbit by the end of February.

The missing part of the puzzle is design and price of UFO on a stick antennas
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starlink-user-antennas-ufos/

Apparently some folks could be trialling it soon.

Ultimately, it looks like we will find out much sooner than later how exactly SpaceX’s Starlink user terminals work, among other details. Musk says that Starlink will be able to start serving customers in Canada and the Northern US with as few as four additional Starlink launches, meaning that some form of beta test could begin after Starlink V1 L6.

As of now, SpaceX has 1-2 more Starlink missions scheduled to launch later this month. If SpaceX averages two launches per month, Starlink could be serving its first customers as early as March or April 2020.

Even though I don't personally need Elon Musk SpaceX Starlink internet service, it's still very interesting...
Reminds me of this scene from the Simpsons
[youtube]jCJRVX2g0uw[/youtube]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And of course, Elon's Tesla stock is now worth over $100billion dollars, effectively giving Elon more unlimited power than even Palpatine could have ever imagined.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/teslas-stock-rally-boosts-market-cap-above-100-billion-2020-01-22?mod=mw_quote_news

giphy.gif
 
More updates on Musk stuff...
This article from ZDNet posted a few months ago seems to be the most juicy info-packed article I have ever seen on Starlink.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/fast-affordable-internet-from-the-sky-is-almost-here/
Here are some interesting quotes
  • Starlink satellite internet to start serving customers in mid-2020
  • SpaceX predicts, "Once fully optimized through the Final Deployment, the system will be able to provide high bandwidth (up to 1Gbps per user), low-latency broadband services for consumers and businesses in the US and globally."
  • SpaceX's VP of satellite government affairs, Patricia Cooper, promises that StarLink will have latencies as low as 25ms.
  • It appears that Starlink will cost approximately $80 per month, but there's no clear price guidance yet.
I have been finding watching the launches of these oddly entertaining, you can hit the YouTube bell button and be notified when they start streaming, this launch is due in about 24 hours from now when I post this.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-launch-space-internet-prime-time/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KmBDCiL7MU
[youtube]1KmBDCiL7MU[/youtube]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly is news of the Tesla Solarglass / Solar Roof V3, here is the video/article... Frankly, it appears to be a trial/PR stunt by Tesla Solar, I am dubious the Tesla Solarglass roof will be viable for average folks despite the aimed price, but more a thing for well-above-average wealthy folks when it's all said and done.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-solarglass-first-impressions-v3-roof-tiles/
[youtube]LRPy8UZv9V0[/youtube]
 
TheBeastie said:
Secondly is news of the Tesla Solarglass / Solar Roof V3, here is the video/article... . . .I am dubious the Tesla Solarglass roof will be viable for average folks despite the aimed price, but more a thing for well-above-average wealthy folks when it's all said and done.
Click to expand...
Of course. As every single introduction of new technology is. PV itself was that way 20 years ago.
 
Current planned star link constellation is 12,000 satellites, but permission for an additional 30,000 has been requested to the ITU. 42,000 in total.

Musk has also applied to the FCC for upto 1 million ground stations to communicate with them.

The satellites have an expected life of 5 years, so just to maintain the constellation, an average of 8,400 replacement satellites must be launched every year - forever.

Currently the Falcon 9 can launch 60 satellites per trip.

The scale of the proposed system is staggering. I have no idea how energy/resource intensive it is compared to conventional networks.
 
Punx0r said:
Current planned star link constellation is 12,000 satellites, but permission for an additional 30,000 has been requested to the ITU. 42,000 in total.
<snip>
The satellites have an expected life of 5 years, so just to maintain the constellation, an average of 8,400 replacement satellites must be launched every year - forever.
<snip>
Currently the Falcon 9 can launch 60 satellites per trip.
Click to expand...
so at 60 per trip, with an f9, at $50million a trip (per wikipedia for a reused f9), that's 200 trips (for 12000) at $10billion in rocket (and fuel?) cost alone.

then, 8400 a year, 60 per trip, is 140 launches, or $7billion a year, launching more than twice a week.

if i'm reading the wiki right, it's about 1.1million pounds of fuel each launch, so that's at least 220million pounds of fuel there, and another 154million pounds of fuel each year. afaict it's lox / kerosene; probably the lox is electrolyzed from water.

based on math found elsewhere on the web, it's about 190kwh per gallon of water to electrolyze. so that's about 41.8billion kwh to get the intial oxygen, and then every year another 29.2billion kwh.

that doesn't include figures on refining the kerosene, or whatever pollution is created by burning it during launch, etc.


i don't know what other costs or resources are required, left out of the above. (or if my numbers are even good approximations)
 
Amberwolf said:
that doesn't include figures on refining the kerosene, or whatever pollution is created by burning it during launch, etc.
Click to expand...
Yep. The Super Heavy, the vehicle slated to replace the Falcon 9 for such launches, burns methane and LOX - so the exhaust will be only CO2 and water. It will be better but still not ideal. The SLS will burn LH2/LOX in its first stage but will use solid fuel boosters that are far, far dirtier than even kerosene/LOX.
 
i haven't kept up with stuff like this in decades, so...i wonder why they didn't use the shuttle main engine design (or some variation) using lox/lh? I would guess it has to do with either thrust (lack of?) or cost of maintenance/etc, or thrust/weight ratio for engine + fuel, but i don't know which, if any, it might be.

just seems like the ability to make fuel from water would be nice, and the "lack of pollution" (at least, directly, not counting the power source used to break down the water and then compress the resulting gases).
 
If it burns there shall be co2. HOW MUCH carbon, HOW MUCH carbon monoxide, I'm waiting for real info. There wont be a lack of pollution. How much improvement is up for grabs.
 
Interesting article here on Musk's Starlink.
At first I thought it was a negative or somewhat hit piece on Musks Starlink/SpaceX dreams, but if you look past the negative headline they end up suggesting that Musks Starlink for providing internet in the rural USA will probably be more viable than maintaining any kind of cabled broadband service for these types of distant users.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/04/10/elon-musk-wants-taxpayers-to-pay-for-his-starlink.aspx
I have put in BOLD the juicy interesting bit of the article, that is it claims maintaining "wired" networks in rural areas is more expensive than just blasting Starlink sats into space...
.

Here's how that plan might work: In January, the Federal Communications Commission launched a $20.4 billion "Rural Digital Opportunity Fund" to expand fast internet access by paying for the construction of "up to gigabit speed broadband networks in unserved rural areas" over the next 10 years. $16 billion will be up for grabs initially, and another $4.4 billion later on, with the funds coming from government surcharges (taxes) levied on consumers' phone bills.

SpaceX wants to bid for part or all of the funds available, and to offer to beam internet access from space in competition with traditional "wired" internet providers such as Comcast, CenturyLink, and Conexon LLC. Such companies oppose SpaceX's involvement, arguing that SpaceX's satellite internet technology is unproven, reports The Wall Street Journal. But Musk responds that its satellite-based internet will offer "low-latency" similar to offerings from cable providers -- and he has the tweets to prove it.

According to Elon Musk, building an operational Starlink satellite internet broadband constellation could cost as little as $10 billion. And once built, maintaining it would presumably cost far less. In contrast, Comcast spends $10 billion to $11 billion every year on capital maintenance and investment. Granted, this capital budget covers a lot of Comcast businesses, not just cable. But data from S&P Global Market Intelligence show that CenturyLink, for example, which is primarily a cable business, spends upwards of $3 billion a year on capital investment to maintain a cable infrastructure only about one-third the size of Comcast's, and considerably smaller than SpaceX's global Starlink would be.

This speaks to the relative cheapness of providing rural broadband internet access from space, as opposed to providing it through cables laid underground. If SpaceX can also demonstrate it has the necessary bandwidth to provide the service, and can provide it at sufficiently low levels of latency, there's a very real chance that the lion's share of this Rural Digital Opportunity Fund money will go to SpaceX.

In that case, SpaceX could conceivably build its network on the government's dime -- and keep the profits for itself.

 
amberwolf said:
i haven't kept up with stuff like this in decades, so...i wonder why they didn't use the shuttle main engine design (or some variation) using lox/lh?
Click to expand...
A few reasons:

1) Hydrogen is very hard to carry since it's so light even in liquid form (and thus needs huge tanks.) That's a big payload penalty.
2) The engine can't be restarted. It's designed to start once at surface pressure; water condenses in the engine after shutdown and right now there's no way to purge it. It also needs fuel pressure to start, which you can't get in freefall without a lot of other stuff (ullage engines, startup pumps)
 
So broke from the shutdown, he's gotta sell everything. Maybe he'll drive an old Toyota CORONA.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/business/elon-musk-home-sales/index.html
 
Joe Rogan had Elon on his youtube podcast channel.

This clip is very interesting, 70 seconds in
https://youtu.be/eKvCdmfCOoY?t=73
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top