Jump to content

NedZepplin

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About NedZepplin

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Location
    SE USA
  • Interests
    Multihulls, engineering.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You should try studying it sometime. "On October 29, NASA’s Deep Space Network communicated with the Voyager 2 spacecraft for the first time since March of this year. The only radio antenna powerful enough to send and receive the faint signals from the 43-year-old spacecraft is the 70-meter-wide (230-foot-wide) Deep Space Station 43 dish in Canberra, Australia. But the behemoth radio dish has been offline for repairs and upgrades." https://www.universetoday.com/148707/the-only-radio-antenna-capable-of-communicating-with-voyager-2-came-back-online-during-repairs-and-upgrades-contact
  2. Maybe they just ignore all that, and create fake "Cells" by targeting an area which has no existing towers with their signal, and then broadcast into that area like they are a tower, then when a handset responds they pick up the connection. They would then have to be able to narrow their listening and broadcasting to the part of the cell where that specific handset is. Seems theoretically possible, but I'm not aware of any existing phased array system that has that level of capability, especially for broadband and reaching consumer devices at that range. The picture of their sats
  3. Those sunreefs are all about the interior. And the interiors do look nice. The yard clearly has skill, so why don't they make anything that is in a performance cruiser line?
  4. It's a tradeoff of wattage, antenna design and size and bandwidth. If they were designing their own handset, I would take it as a given that they can do it well-- Iridium proved the concept 20 years ago. But it's working with existing handsets that I find dubious, Especially given that those handsets were designed with bandwidth, wattage and antennas for terrestrial towers. It may be possible, as I said, but the execution risk is pretty high. They haven't picked a launch partner yet, let alone done a proof of concept.
  5. Yes, and parabolic dishes that will not fit in your pocket. Current cell phones fit in your pockets. Notice, I never said it was impossible, just would require really quite a lot of innovation on the satellites side.... and that means execution risk. I don't remember the wattage of the original iridium phones, but they had a big honking antenna a good 4-5 inches long. The thing is, though, today's regular cellular phones don't have that. And this system claims it will work with 5 billion already operating handsets. And their existing weak radios and tiny antennae.
  6. FYI: If you are in the Victron Cult, their UI stuff has been ported to the Pi. I haven't tried it. https://www.victronenergy.com/blog/2018/04/11/homemade-pi-open-source-raspberry-flavour/
  7. AST is a clever idea but there's so much execution risk and so much handwaving in their info that it creates a lot of red flags. Like regular cellphones that have trouble reaching a tower a few miles away are going to reach these satellites in equatorial orbits-- around 22,000 miles away. And they are suppose to make this seamless for existing handsets? Even if the sats are super sensitive, all the different terrestrial cells within its view will be using the same cellular channels, so they will all be effectively broadcasting and the sat will somehow have to filter it all out to hear jus
  8. Starlink is clearly targeted at being global infrastructure and its networking protocols are claimed to be designed to support that mission in a way that makes them difficult to intercept or otherwise compromise. However, Starlink needs permission to operate in every geographic locality-- since every country has an FCC equivalent that gives government a monopoly on communications. Given the human rights hostility of the currently popular globalist ideological movement, we can expect China to want a backdoor or ban it, along with a lot of other countries. So the real question is, wil
  9. I made this exact same point along with educating Kalimari on the fact that these are LEO and will de-orbit even if non-operational, and that's what caused the response of constant insults. It has nothing to do with astronomy, it is just because Musk is rich and therefore "evil" and bringing satellite internet to all the poor people in africa is also "evil" because some poor person somewhere might not be able to afford it. The other point they will never concede is that the sats were designed to minimize visibility from earth, have been improved as a result of observing their on orbit
  10. I'm just gonna repost this because it is highly relevant to the future of Starlink. Ignore the fact I'm refuting a commies virtue signaling about how poor people can't afford it, but notice that the nature of this constellation turns the economics of delivery on its head. Traditionally the "last mile" has been the most expensive part of any internet service. Backbones have been long established and are high capacity, but running cable, fiber or whatever to an individual home has been really expensive. Starlink is radically different. It is rather expensive (though cheap for a sate
  11. Easy-- I proved Kalimari wrong on so many counts that he had to airlift his friends in here to torpedo discussion with personal insults. So whatever you believe his credibility is, obviously mine is higher. PS-- Love the irony of pointing out that I am new in response to my question of whether this was forum where longstanding members would dish out attacks and new people were expected to just take it-- you just proved me right while trying to pretend like I'm trolling! Hilarious unintentional confession there. Oh, no, exposing frauds is a public service. Makes me a hero, not a
  12. You obviously have a dog in this fight. If you cared at all about facts you would be honest about the fact that my responses to every claim have been factual. You would be honest about the fact that, rather than respond to his blatant personal attacks, I merely documented them. Of course it is hypocrisy to characterize me in a derogatory fashion based only on your speculation, also known as a personal attack, while ignoring the fact Kolbari has insulted people in response to them pointing out facts that embarrassed him. But you "have no dog in this fight". You want to ignore
  13. "you don't have respect for seniority or authority". You're god damn right. I respect anyone who has experience and can demonstrate it by explaining how I am wrong by talking to the point. Hell, I'm used to the terrible arguments people make-- I'll work to figure out what they are trying to say and address it. But make actual arguments. And to the point. I have zero respect for anyone who demands that I not question them based on *their* claims of "seniority" or "authority". I don't lick boots, I don't bend the knee and I won't kiss your ring. Only pussies do that. C
  14. The one in Antigua is sale pending and the one in New Zealand is $519k. Wow, seems to be new everything. The engines are 2017 and have 230 hours Lombardi is a US builder, right? I don't know how many US built boats in this size and capability are at this price.
  15. You have engaged in a personal attack or ad hominem in every single one of your posts on this thread. Including before I stepped in to correct you. Further, you have failed to even attempt to defend your claims, instead insisting you are an expert-- which is the logical fallacy of argument from authority. Further, since I proved you wrong in your claims about basic physics, the configuration of this constellation and how astronomy works, why should any of us believe you are an expert at all? What is it called when you make and argument from authority fallacy -- but aren't an authority a
×
×
  • Create New...