1. As others have pointed out, the link budget (how much energy loss a particular radio link can handle before it is broken) for D2C satellites assumes a nearly direct line of sight from your handset to the satellite. This is much easier to achieve with satellites in space than it is with traditional cell towers that might have numerous walls/buildings in the way.
2. The D2C satellites use massive phased array antennas that are able to point a very narrow beam very accurately to the ground. This provides a substantial amount of antenna gain that further helps the link budget. The gain from the antennas allows the satellites to pick up even relatively weak signals from a handset.
There are other tricks as well, but these account for the largest differences. Of course, doppler gets in the way, but it is a solvable problem.
In theory, yes. Phased arrays can steer as many independent beams as the connected electronics support. I real life, it's probably going to be dozens or maybe hundreds of beams.
My thinking is that you can think of Starlink satellites as LTE towers that just happen to be ~350 miles away from your phone. It happens to work because while they are far away, the satellites have a very clear line of sight (directly down) with few (no) obstacles.
The complication is that the base stations will be moving much more rapidly than traditional terrestrial towers.
Yeah, this is going to decimate your battery life. It's great to have in an emergency, don't get me wrong, but I'd probably leave data off otherwise when out remote.
No, that’s just satellite backhaul for a cell tower. That’s not hard, but also typically if you can get power to a base station you can run fiber along the same poles the power runs on.
This is direct from handset to satellite, it’s clearly explained in the link.
What does that even mean? lol. The Ted way still works and the shoe laces have not come undone in 10 years since I've been using it, so why would I change method?
The density of flash memory is competitive with magnetic tapes, but the retention time is too low, making flash memory completely unusable for archival storage, even if it would have been as cheap as magnetic tape.
In theory, write-once memory cards, using some kind of antifuses, could be designed to have a lifetime good enough for archival storage, but nobody has attempted to develop such a technology, because it is not clear if there would be a market for them.
Most people do not think far ahead in the future, so they do not care much about archival data storage, until it is too late and the information had already been lost.
> The density of flash memory is competitive with magnetic tapes, but the retention time is too low, making flash memory completely unusable for archival storage, even if it would have been as cheap as magnetic tape.
I disagree that it's unusable. You'd end up with a puck the size of a data tape that can archive a petabyte of data and needs to be plugged in to a 5 watt power supply for long term storage. That's not super onerous. Then consider that tapes need to be stored at exactly room temperature with 20-50 percent humidity, while this puck would barely care about environment at all. And you could plug it directly into a computer without a $5k drive. Honestly it sounds pretty good to me. We just need to drop the price of flash by a factor of 20 to make the scenario happen.
It probably references the density within the data tape world, which is significant as there could be other ways to achieve a higher total storage, but this is one of the major components here it seems
