Could We Provide Better Cellphone Service With Fewer, Bigger Satellites? (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0180608184
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/26/01/18/0035242/could-we-provide-better-cellphone-service-with-fewer-bigger-satellites
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/fcc-approves-spacex-plan-deploy-additional-7500-starlink-satellites-2026-01-09/
Meanwhile "Beijing and some Chinese companies are planning two separate mega-constellations, Guowang and G60 Starlink, totaling nearly 26,000 satellites," and this week the Chinese government " [3]applied for launch permits for 200,000 satellites. "
But a small Texas-based company called AST SpaceMobile "believes it can provide better service with fewer than 100 gigantic satellites in space."
> AST SpaceMobile has developed a direct-to-cell technology that utilizes large satellites called BlueBirds. These machines use thousands of antennas to deliver broadband coverage directly to standard mobile phones, says the company's president, Scott Wisniewski. "This approach is remarkably efficient: We can achieve global coverage with approximately 90 satellites, not thousands or even tens of thousands required by other systems," Wisniewski writes in an email...
>
> The key is its satellites' size and sophistication. AST's first generation of commercial satellite, the BlueBird 1-5, unfolds into a massive 693-square-foot array in space. Today, the company has five operational BlueBird 1-5 satellites in orbit, but its ambitions are much bigger. On December 24, 2025, AST [4]launched the first of its next-generation satellites from India — called Block 2 — and this one broke records. The BlueBird 6 has a surface of almost 2,400 square feet, making it the largest single satellite in low Earth orbit. The company plans to launch up to 60 more by the end of 2026. "This large surface area is essential for gathering faint signals from standard, unmodified mobile phones on the ground," Wisniewski explains. It is essentially a single, extremely powerful and sensitive cell tower in the sky, capable of serving a huge geographical area...
>
> To be clear, AST SpaceMobile's approach is not without its own controversies. The sheer size of the company's satellites makes them incredibly bright in the night sky, a significant source of frustration for ground-based astronomers. McDowell confirms that when it launched in 2022, AST's prototype satellite, BlueWalker 3, became "one of the top 10 brightest objects in the night sky for a while."
>
> "It's a serious issue, and we are working directly with the astronomy community to mitigate our impact," Wisniewski says. The company is exploring solutions like anti-reflective coatings and operational adjustments to minimize the time its satellites are at maximum brightness...
AST SpaceMobile has already proven its technology works, the article points out, with six working satellites now transmitting at typical 5G speeds directly to regular phones.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/starlink-rival-eutelsat-signs-deal-with-europes-maiaspace-launch-satellites-2026-01-16/
[2] https://www.fastcompany.com/91464903/space-cellphone-war-ast-spacemobile-starlink
[3] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3339493/china-applies-put-200000-satellites-space-after-calling-starlink-crash-risk
[4] https://x.com/AbelAvellan/status/2003686320950988812?s=20
Iridium tried this (Score:2)
Iridium tried this [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellation [wikipedia.org] . Now that was 25 years ago and the tech has changed, but doing this via large satellites proved very expensive then. While there are some clear advantages of a few large satellites (more ability to do maneuvering and station keeping, better scaling on the satellite itself for many parts which are needed regardless of satellite size) but , there are other advantages of having a large set of satellites, including redundancy, eco
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellation
"better" (Score:2)
> "Could We Provide Better Cellphone Service With Fewer, Bigger Satellites?"
Define "better". Better than more smaller satellites? Better than land-based systems?
As an augmentation to land-based systems, satellite service can be a great boon. But it is also a scary "single point of failure" issue. Satellite service is easier to jam/block, will suffer from space-based radiation, requires more device power, has sky-visibility issues, and considering the apparent space hostility, easy to knock out a few t
Latency and uptime (Score:1)
With 90 sats, each one has to cover 1% of the globe. Break out your trigonometry and you'll figure out that in the extreme edge of a coverage cell, minimum range is 1000 miles. Assuming you can talk to it just over the horizon. Spoiler alert: you can't and that's going to make the max range at the end of coverage bigger.
This is in contrast to starlink where there's always one almost overhead and less than 500 miles away.
The extra up to 1000 miles round trip (500 up and 500 down, not counting differences in
Reflectivity (Score:2)
Presumably, irrespective of optical coatings added, these satellites will be highly reflective in the radio bands where it operates.
Radio astronomers might have something to say about that too.
No (Score:2)
[1]Betteridge's law of headlines [wikipedia.org] says "no".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
The key is service density . . . (Score:2)
. . . and that means we’re a long way from replacing most cell towers.
A key limitation is that cell phones generate very weak signals, which significantly lowers the achievable density. For example, look at StarLinks’s latest generation, V3, where each satellite projects multiple 400 km^2 coverage beams. Each beam can only service a limited amount of phones before the phones start interfering with each other. It’s maybe a hundred active phones per beam if each phone’s bandwidth is ke
Kessler syndrome (Score:2)
Did you learn nothing from the movie Gravity? Kessler syndrome [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BejM1biN_8k
MAINFRAMES in (Score:2)
SPAAAACE!!!
as long as it's the Biggest, most Beautiful Satell (Score:2)
ite....
Also make sure there a squadron of Imperial Tie Fighters to defend it, cause the Rebels are coming.
Arguably, yes (Score:4, Interesting)
A larger satellite can have a larger signals collecting area, can have much more sophisticated electronics, can have better shielding against radiation, and (if it uses solar panels) can have substantially larger panels because it'll have the fuel to manoever.
Now, whether or not these particular large satellites are better, proof is in the pudding. Clearly, they're still being idiots about reflectivity. (Yes, you've got to get rid of the heat, and that's best done in a direction that doesn't worsen your altitude, but there's ways to do this that don't interfere with astronomy,)
Re: (Score:2)
Another benefit to honkin' big satellites is that you can provide them with the necessary armour to survive the consequences of having a quarter of a million other satellites (at least initially, before the inevitable collisions occur) zinging around up there.