Le 15/09/2023 à 17:18, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink a écrit :
On 15/09/2023 11:29 pm, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:
I must say that I dont know whether the original 'DISHY' is simply a
dish antenna with an analog amplifier and maybe some mechanical motor
steering, or whether DISHY includes a computer to execute some protocol,
some algorithm.
It's a phased array, not a dish, even if it looks like one. It
consists of 100's of fingernail-sized antenna elements that:
* during transmissions, have an individual phase delay added to the
signal transmitted from that element, in order to permit
transmission of the combined signal from all elements into a
particular direction.
* during reception, have an individual phase delay added to the
signal collected by that element, before the signals are added to
obtain the combined received signal. This allows reception from a
particular direction.
Dishy's main direction of transmission / reception is therefore not
its surface normal - this simply points to the area of the sky where
Dishy expects to see most satellites (a function of geographical
latitude and constellation design - essentially straight up in the
tropics, and elsewhere in the direction of the 53rd parallel, which
corresponds to the predominant orbital inclination in the Starlink
fleet). The actual tracking is then done with the phased array without
mechanical movement by Dishy.
Thanks for the description. It is an advanced and interesting antenna
behaviour for a consumer product. It is good the mechanical motor is
replaced with phasing.
More advanced phasing is probably used in their antenna version for
automobiles, but might be the same principles.
Then, for ships, where more 3D-imensional like movements exist,
replacing big motors with phasing can represent significant gains in
terms of space occupied.
From what I've seen, Dishy seems to consume more power on receive than
on transmit - that's if you actually download stuff. This is somewhat
counter-intuitive if you're used to putting link budgets together. But
I'd attribute that to a higher degree of digital signal processing
required on the receive and demodulation path.
It is interesting it consumes more on receive than on transmit. Thanks.
There was a pointer here pointing to an ETSI document about what might
be a sort of certification (access to medium to not disturb the
others). In it, it seems a different freq is used for transmit than for
receive. (12 vs 14GHz, or so, or vice-versa). The difference in frquency
might also be a factor (in addition to the dsp calculus you mention) in
differentiating the consumption up vs download. I'd expect working with
higher freuencies to require more energy. But I am not sure an ETSI
document can be for US starlink end user device.
Alex
--
****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel
School of Computer Science
Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
The University of Auckland
[email protected]
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
****************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
