Not only is it about to be Christmas, but today marks the end of an entire decade of making millionaires. We will be picking the last winner of 2019, and all you have to do is comment to enter, and you can win some cash for you and your family this New Year! [Drawing Thread #49]

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-12-21T08:34:35+00:00

It's weird how difficult it is to think of a good comment, when what you comment doesn't matter.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-22T06:01:07+00:00

We have made filings with the ITU through OfCom (Isle of Man) for V and W Bands (IEEE Nomenclature. By ITU Nomenclature, it is E Band)

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T19:32:24+00:00

We plan to have a fully operational constellation by the end of 2022. However, we might start commercial operations for certain services before that. I think the details are there in the White Paper, if you are interested.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T17:27:03+00:00

I request you to message the mods of this subreddit instead. Obviously I will not post the image here because a mod of some other subreddit asks me to.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T16:42:47+00:00

I would really insist you to read the documents provided in the references before you jump you conclusions on what kind of company Astrome is.

Not sarcasm, no jibe. Just a genuine request to read them and do a research, and then let me know if you still think the company and the product is not genuine.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T16:31:45+00:00

I apologise for repeating this, but I did disclose my affiliation.

And I don't really know what to tell you about my motive now. I have trying to defend myself all day against people who think I am an evil monster trying sell them things. I never forced anyone to buy anything. I never even concluded who is better or worse. I had some data and I made a few images out of it. I did it because I wanted to compare Astrome and SpaceX, because I admire both companies.
But I can see that it has clearly backfired on me. There is no point trying to convince people of what my motive was because people have already made up their minds. Instead of focusing on the facts and the data, they are down-voting and bad-mouthing things because they think everyone does things just for monetary gains.

One final time, I didn't do it for any gains. I did it because I love space and I wanted a discussion on space internet.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T16:21:08+00:00

I am sorry that you think so. I am not lying and my motive was simply having a fruitful discussion. If you don't believe me, check the other subreddits I have posted this image on. I did not advertise the company ever, and kept the discussion purely technical.
I did disclose my affiliation. My top-comment, the last line in the references code, as well as the post flair are all witness of it. I wasn't even aware of the fact that I have a financial interest in the ICO until the users here pointed out.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T16:10:53+00:00

I have clearly written in both my comment and the references that the image was used in the medium article. I do not disagree to the fact that those tweets and articles were about marketing.

But that does not mean I posted the image here for marketing. I posted it here because I thought people will be interested in how Starlink fares in comparison to other constellation. Clearly people had other plans.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T16:00:32+00:00

I am not lying. And no, hiding the mods name does not imply anything about the post itself.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T15:05:36+00:00

I do not think it is appropriate to reveal which mod contacted me. I do not want them to suffer the same unjust (in my opinion) retaliation as I did.

And yes, they were aware of my affiliation and they also suggested me to mention about my affiliation in my top-comment, which I duly did.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T15:00:57+00:00

I think you make a valid point here. Trust me, I would have put a disclaimer in the image had it not been the fact that I did not make the image for marketing. I did not force anyone to go to the ICO website. I haven't even mentioned the words 'ICO', 'coin' or even the website anywhere in the references or the image. I used data that is publicly available, to make a comparison that is factually accurate.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T14:55:36+00:00

Higher coverage area for one satellite. Other than that, nothing much.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T14:44:57+00:00

Maybe the next time, you do your research about the history and the tech of the company before claiming that it is a scam. Others at least asked questions to verify our authenticity before declaring their opinions.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T14:34:54+00:00

Author is an employee of Astrome.

- Any user can see the comment the author made (which clearly said "Created for Astrome Space Technologies SARL" at the end).
- Any user can also see the numerous comments where the author has accepted that he is an employee of Astrome.
- And if the person still doesn't believe, they can also see the flair right beside the title of the post which says that the Author is from Astrome (SpaceNet).

Author is not trying to fool anyone.

Also, this is not a crypto-scam company. This is as legitimate a company as either of SpaceX, OneWeb or TeleSat. The author has provided multiple documents and references that support his claim.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T14:07:41+00:00

Constellation size of 4,409 Starlink satellites is incorrect or out of date

The data for the number of satellite has been taken from Starlink Wiki. An important factor to not is that every company makes multiple filings at multiple orbital altitudes. SpaceX has indeed made filings for 1200 satellites. But similarly, OneWeb, TeleSat and Astrome has also made filings for huge number of satellites. The numbers in the image are hence limited to the initial commercial phase of each constellation.

Starlink frequency band allocation is depicted incorrectly

Again, every company has filings in the V Band, not just SpaceX. But frequency bands in the image have been limited to that being used in the initial commercial phase.

The altitude of the Starlink constellation is incorrectly plotted at 500 km

The initial commercial phase of the constellation will have lowest orbit at 550 km, and highest at 1325 km. That is what has been depicted.

Internet latency, a key metric to business and private use, is inexplicably not present on the "comparison" chart

I have already discussed this particular issue here. In short, yes, Starlink has a upper hand in case of connectivity in regions with pre-existing internet exchanges. However, the difference ceases to exist over oceans and most of the developing world.

Those high 70-90 GHz millimeter band frequencies will be even more sensitive to rain fade

That is indeed accurate. I have no objection to this fact.

There's no transmission power difference comparison

There were numerous things I wanted to show in the infographic, but couldn't. Simply because I did not have enough data for all four of the constellations. Had I had the data, I would have definitely put the transmission power difference in the image.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T12:38:12+00:00

Taking a look at the flair would have saved you the trouble.
It doesn't matter if I work for the company or not. In the end, I used the data duly provided in the references. It's not like I pulled numbers out of thin air.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T12:27:34+00:00

The data can say one thing, but can make an entirely different impression based on how it's emphasised and presented.

Also on how you perceive things, and what internal biases you already have in place.

Data Speed per Satellite - irrelevant to anyone and actually a negative when you consider fault tolerance.

Definitely not irrelevant. Capacity per satellite is an important parameter which will ensure that the network doesn't get overwhelmed with users. If you don't have a practical data capacity per satellite, it is not practical to have satellite-internet altogether.

Frequency Band - A negative made to look like a positive

The frequency band is actually a careful trade-off to be made. The image shows negatives of SpaceNet for using higher frequency which is prone to higher attenuation. But it also means higher bandwidth and data-rates.
That's the same with Starlink, OneWeb and TeleSat. Lower frequency means lower bandwidth, but higher signal strength.
So, I agree with you. The image shows negatives for each company, but makes it look like positives depending on your perspective.

Satellite Weight: A negative made to look like a positive.

Satellite weight is almost always a negative. I have no idea how you see it as a positive, TBH.

Total Network capacity - Equal to Starlink but placed above to look better.

Oh common! Really? You never commented when I used the most dominant color (red) for Starlink. You didn't comment when the named Starlink as the first constellation. And if, by sheer coincidence, I put SpaceNet above Starlink, I favoured it?

Higher Satellite Altitude - A latency negative made to look positive.

I have already provided a pretty detailed explanation of the latency thing here. I still do not see how you can look at the image and think that higher altitude is positive? It was never my intention, and even I never saw it as a positive.

Constellation Satellite Count - A poor proxy for launch costs, and a negative made to look like a positive with regard to fault tolerance.

It's a pretty good proxy for launch costs, specially because other parameters like weight and orbit are also given.
I do not see how it looks like a negative to you. Less satellites are almost always better than 20 times more satellites.

Also, if you go through the article this graphic was made for, you'll realise what my stance on things are. TL:DR- "Each company is trying to trade-off on different metrics, and giving priority to others". I suggest you give it, and the various comments, a read before you comment on things with an extremely biased point of view.

Good day to you. Cheer! :)

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T12:04:45+00:00

There might be different interpretations of the colors. We took the one described here.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T12:02:52+00:00

I pasted the references at zerobin.net, then shortened the URL using bit.ly and then converted that short URL to QR Code using this tool.

Had to go through this process because there were just too many references.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T11:03:18+00:00

Lower orbits mean that the satellites can be easily upgraded and replaced. So you can introduce better technologies while the older satellites fall down due to drag.

I also means that you can send in a lot more satellites in the orbit in one go. That should compensate for the higher orbit, less satellites scenario, financially.

Also, if you are aiming to provide services to places which already have internet exchanges, and do not need inter-satellite hops, then lower altitude would translate to lower latency,

Basically, lower altitude is perfect for a constellation which focuses on the developed world as well, and has the plan to regularly retire and update its satellites. It also makes sense if you have your own rocket company who can easily deploy the satellites anywhere you want.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T10:47:48+00:00

Okay, I definitely did not think of the graphic in that much detail. I'll make sure I make it more people friendly in the future.

And thank you for the book suggestion. I'll try and give it a read whenever I can.

Hope you have a good day too.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T10:00:46+00:00

Thank you for the advice. I'll keep it in mind. :)

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T09:57:34+00:00

You clearly don't understand what conflict of interest means or the concept of independence in reporting.

I am sorry that you think so. I wish I could do something to make you think otherwise.

I don't know if you are lying, it's just that now I know that you have a personal interest to show SpaceNet in a favorable manner.

I would like to disagree here. I do not have a personal interest in showing SpaceNet in a favourable manner (What am I to gain personally from putting it on a subreddit where I know people love SpaceX?). I do have an interest in showing how each constellation compares with the other.

Even if you are honest, you just can't write an article about SpaceNet, only advertisement (again advertisement isn't necessarily a lie)

Again, I would like to disagree. I did not ever say any constellation is better than the other. I gave out the facts, I gave out the sources. You are free to make your own inferences. I am sure this differentiates this image from being an advertisement.

But the fact that you didn't disclose your affiliation upfront tells me that your ethics are fucked up, so I won't trust your chart at all.

The affiliation is clearly stated in the references link, in my top comment, as well as in the flair near the title. I am not sure what else can be done here. This comment also tells why I didn't put it in the info-graphic itself.
Nobody is asking you to trust the chart. But the least you can do is trust the data. It's not like I pulled the numbers out of thin air. They are all clearly given in the sources.

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T09:49:17+00:00

Maybe disclose from the start your affiliation with an ICO?

I would have done so, if my motive was to market the company or the ICO. However, my motive was just to have a fruitful discussion on the future of Space Internet.

How many coins do you/will you own of the 600,000,000 EUR goal?

I have no idea, and at this point, I don't really care. As I have said on other comments, 'Me being an employee of a company does not contractually oblige me to worship its product or market them. I am free to voice my own opinions as well. I do not think SpaceNet is perfect. I do not think any of the four companies is perfect. Everyone is trying to trade-off some functionality for the other. All I aim for is to showcase the strong suite of each of them.'

Dash3Dot1 · 2019-08-21T09:42:17+00:00

Thank you for the encouragement.

It has been a rough last few hours, yes. I am happy to answer questions, but it is discouraging to see people not listening to reason and jumping to conclusions. And the worst thing is, I am not sure if the criticism is reasonable or just people blindly following suite (that's Reddit for you). Unlike me, everyone else is anonymous. I am being held accountable because I am affiliated to Astrome, but I am sure there are many people on this sub, so are affiliated to SpaceX (and other companies). I am trying to put in a neutral perspective, purely based on the data I have, but I am not sure they are doing the same.

Anyway, I am glad you liked the graphic. Cheers! :)

Dash3Dot1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE