As I see it, ASTS is perhaps ahead on the antenna technology demonstration, and SpaceX is definitely ahead on deployment at scale (i.e. SpaceX launched six satellites just now, ASTS has launched one afaik). Which of those metrics is "more important" isn't clear to me, but I suspect SpaceX has the overall velocity advantage.
One thing I don't know is how the size of the relevant satellites compares. If ASTS is getting twice the bandwidth from a comparable size satellite, that's impressive. If their satellite is an order of magnitude larger than a Starlink sat that'll be an issue.
I was speaking technologically. Both Starlink and ASTS satellites are technological demonstrations so I would argue only the technology matters. Since ASTS plans to launch using SpaceX and manufacture through 3rd-party contracts I don't believe Starlink's existing constellation provides any benefits; rather the competition will come down to funding and manufacturing expertise.
The 6-1 satellite advantage doesn't necessarily favor Starlink. BlueWalker 3 was launched 15 months before Starlink's first mobile communications satellite and was itself preceded 5 months by BlueWalker 1. However the six Starlink v2-Mini-D2D satellites feature inter-satellite links, so that is a point in favor of Starlink. BlueWalker will be succeeded by five commercial satellites called BlueBirds which are currently under construction.
As for technology, I can't find any information about the Starlink direct-to-cell satellites. As far as I can tell they haven't been even given NORAD IDs yet.The entire Jan 2 Group 7-9 launch seems to be classified as 58699/Object-A. Given that the launch lifted 21 rather than the standard 22 satellites we can assume the new design is similar to the Starlink v2-Mini in size and weight - perhaps only 125 kg heavier. This suggest the efficiency/weight ratio favors Starlink. Starlink v2-Mini weighs 800 kg
1. I don't have access to the FCC filings so I multiplied the new bus length by the old width.
2. Per-beam, I assume.
From what I gather satellite mass is more correlated with coverage (number of beams) rather than beam efficiency. For the moment, ASTS antennas are just better ($/bandwidth not published). And the new BlueBird satellites are going to be horribly massive and horribly bright compared to BlueWalker-3.
P.S. Anyone know what BlueWalker-3-deb represents?
Comments
As I'm reminded, ASTS is far ahead in this area.
https://twitter.com/AST_SpaceMobile/status/17434215614224303...
As I see it, ASTS is perhaps ahead on the antenna technology demonstration, and SpaceX is definitely ahead on deployment at scale (i.e. SpaceX launched six satellites just now, ASTS has launched one afaik). Which of those metrics is "more important" isn't clear to me, but I suspect SpaceX has the overall velocity advantage.
One thing I don't know is how the size of the relevant satellites compares. If ASTS is getting twice the bandwidth from a comparable size satellite, that's impressive. If their satellite is an order of magnitude larger than a Starlink sat that'll be an issue.
I was speaking technologically. Both Starlink and ASTS satellites are technological demonstrations so I would argue only the technology matters. Since ASTS plans to launch using SpaceX and manufacture through 3rd-party contracts I don't believe Starlink's existing constellation provides any benefits; rather the competition will come down to funding and manufacturing expertise.
The 6-1 satellite advantage doesn't necessarily favor Starlink. BlueWalker 3 was launched 15 months before Starlink's first mobile communications satellite and was itself preceded 5 months by BlueWalker 1. However the six Starlink v2-Mini-D2D satellites feature inter-satellite links, so that is a point in favor of Starlink. BlueWalker will be succeeded by five commercial satellites called BlueBirds which are currently under construction.
As for technology, I can't find any information about the Starlink direct-to-cell satellites. As far as I can tell they haven't been even given NORAD IDs yet.The entire Jan 2 Group 7-9 launch seems to be classified as 58699/Object-A. Given that the launch lifted 21 rather than the standard 22 satellites we can assume the new design is similar to the Starlink v2-Mini in size and weight - perhaps only 125 kg heavier. This suggest the efficiency/weight ratio favors Starlink. Starlink v2-Mini weighs 800 kg
edit: better sources:
starlink v2-mini:
* antenna array: 11.07 m2
* solar array: 104.96 m2
* magnitude: +7.87 +- 0.09 (mean, distance-adjusted)
* weight: ~800 kg
starlink v2-mini d2d:
* antenna array: 19.98 m2 (1?)
* solar array: ?
* magnitude: ?
* weight: ~970 kg
* mobile bandwidth: "~7Mb / beam" (40-100km radius)
bluewalker 3:
* antenna array: 64 m2 (front side)
* solar array: 64 m2 (back side)
* magnitude: +3.09 +- 0.04 (mean, distance-adjusted)
* weight: ~1500 kg (redacted?)
* mobile bandwidth: "14 Mbps" (2)
1. I don't have access to the FCC filings so I multiplied the new bus length by the old width.
2. Per-beam, I assume.
From what I gather satellite mass is more correlated with coverage (number of beams) rather than beam efficiency. For the moment, ASTS antennas are just better ($/bandwidth not published). And the new BlueBird satellites are going to be horribly massive and horribly bright compared to BlueWalker-3.
P.S. Anyone know what BlueWalker-3-deb represents?
Starlink and ASTS are completely different beasts. As of the 2020 FCC filing ASTS only intends to operate 243 satellites, 725 - 740 km.