Starlink's new satellites emit 30x more radio interference than before, drowning cosmic signals
- Reference: 1726766291
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/09/19/starlinks_spacex_satellites_radio_interference/
- Source link:
In a paper published yesterday, a group of scientists [1]reported that observations at the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy (ASTRON)'s LOFAR radio telescope found massive amounts of unintended electromagnetic radiation (UEMR) leaking from Starlink V2 satellites - both the [2]mini and [3]direct-to-cell capable variants.
"Compared to the faintest astrophysical sources that we observe with LOFAR, UEMR from Starlink satellites is 10 million times brighter," ASTRON's Cees Bassa, lead author of the study, [4]said .
[5]
"This difference is similar to the faintest stars visible to the naked eye and the brightness of the full Moon," Bassa added. "Since SpaceX is launching about 40 second-generation Starlink satellites every week, this problem is becoming increasingly worse."
[6]
[7]
In short, this is already a serious problem, and it's only going to get worse as more satellites get sent skyward.
Stop me if you've heard this one
The team behind the research is the same that published a study last year finding Starlink's first-generation satellites [8]also leaked UEMR , but only a few microwatts. That's still enough to interfere with radio astronomy observations.
The radiation coming from the V2 Starlink satellites already in orbit isn't minuscule - as mentioned above, it's up to 32 times stronger, and the research indicates it's over a wider range of radio frequencies - including more frequencies used by astronomers.
In their previous study, the team found Starlink sats emitted UEMR in the 110 to 188 megahertz range, a portion of which is [9]protected for radio astronomy uses. Here's where that 32x brighter UEMR figure comes from - it's in this range where V2 satellites are so much brighter.
[10]
At lower band frequencies between 10 and 88 MHz, the researchers said, 27 of 29 Starlink satellites observed for the study in July emitted "exceedingly bright" UEMR in a range where V1 satellites didn't.
On a positive note, the astronomers said V2 Starlink sats don't appear to be leaking UEMR at 125, 135 and 150 MHz frequencies like V1 did.
"While this is an improvement, it is completely negated by the stronger broadband UEMR, which affects a significantly larger part of the observed frequency range," the team noted. In addition, UEMR coming from V2 Starlink satellites appears to exceed thresholds set by the International Telecommunication Union's Radiocommunication sector.
[11]
Radio astronomy is likely to see a number of different effects due to this interference, the team said, with the most noticeable one being low-frequency radio telescopes losing sensitivity as more leaky sats come online.
[12]Low orbit satellites for phone service may cause more light pollution
[13]Astronomers back call for review of bonkers rule that means satellite swarms fly without environment checks
[14]SpaceX faces $663K FAA fine for Musk's alleged launch impatience
[15]Before we put half a million broadband satellites in orbit, anyone want to consider environmental effects?
As time goes on, more satellites will be in a radio telescope's field of view at any given time, meaning that eventually masking of satellite data won't be effective.
"This is the primary reason why broadband UEMR is particularly worrisome for radio astronomy," the researchers wrote. "It increases the risk that the entire observing bandwidth is affected by UEMR for the entire duration of the observation."
Additionally, interferometric telescope arrays that use closely-spaced elements like parabolic dishes or antenna stations may start seeing satellites appearing in the same sky location during observations. That means UEMR won't be decorrelated properly, potentially introducing "artifacts on large spatial scales."
Appealing to Elon
As we noted alongside the previous study, there aren't any international regulations that control the emissions of UEMR from satellites. Without such a rule, it falls to astronomers to beg satellite companies to fulfill their promises of addressing satellite interference.
The team noted in their previous study that it was in discussions with Starlink's parent company SpaceX to mitigate some of the issues, and the company was negotiating changes in "good faith" which it hoped would make it into the second-generation satellites. SpaceX has talked up its fixes to [16]negate light pollution from satellites, and the researchers told us the rocket maker was responsive to the previous research.
"After our initial paper last year, things indeed got better," Federico Di Vruno, astronomer at the Square Kilometer Array Observatory and a co-author on both papers, told The Register in response to emailed questions. "Last year, SpaceX fixed the issue in a matter of weeks. We're not sure why the V2 satellites now show much brighter radiation."
That said, the astronomers remain confident that SpaceX is willing to help. "We have spoken with [SpaceX] and urged them to look into this quickly," Di Vruno said. "Given how quickly they launch new satellites, this case is urgent."
The team doesn't think an in-situ fix is likely to be possible given how such leaks are usually related to the design of onboard electronics, but they're not sure that's the case. SpaceX hasn't responded to questions.
With astronomy-related problems cropping up in each generation of Starlink satellites, it's possible this back-and-forth will continue unless regulators step in and take action, paper co-author Benjamin Winkel told us.
"SpaceX is not the only operator and we expect the number of satellites to exceed 100,000 by the end of the decade," Winkel, an astronomer at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy, added. "Working on the regulation will take many years, if one can succeed with this at all."
In the meantime, we'll all have to just hope SpaceX continues to be gracious in its responses to astronomers. ®
Get our [17]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2024/09/aa51856-24/aa51856-24.html
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/28/spacex_starlink_satellites/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/12/starlinks_satellite_cellular/
[4] https://www.astron.nl/starlink-satellites/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZuyfAyNOTMolAxtMZciNMgAAAU8&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZuyfAyNOTMolAxtMZciNMgAAAU8&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZuyfAyNOTMolAxtMZciNMgAAAU8&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/10/starlink_satellites_leaking_astronomydisturbing_em/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/10/starlink_satellites_leaking_astronomydisturbing_em/
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZuyfAyNOTMolAxtMZciNMgAAAU8&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZuyfAyNOTMolAxtMZciNMgAAAU8&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/07/low_orbit_satellites_for_phone/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/29/astronomers_space_pollution/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/17/faa_spacex_fine_proposed/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/12/starlink_spacex_environment_review/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/01/spacex_satellite_brightness/
[17] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Just for curious...
Musk claimed late last year that Starlink was "cash flow positive". Which means that the monthly revenue from customers exceeds the ongoing monthly cost to launch new satellites. Since the satellites have a finite lifespan estimated at ~5 years they'll forever be launching them.
The long term problem for Starlink is that as fiber and 5G expand, the potential customer base for satellite internet will shrink every year so the price gonna increase over time.
Re: Just for curious...
> The long term problem for Starlink is that as fiber and 5G expand, the potential customer base for satellite internet will shrink every year.
Maybe. My ISPs are getting worse, not better. I'm getting tired enough of AT&T & Spectrum's shit that I'm starting to seriously consider Starlink.
Re: Just for curious...
Starlink only becomes "useful" briefly at the fleeting moments of Armageddon, when warring states start chopping comms cables all over the oceans.
Musk is both predicting and accelerating this apocalypse, and stands to make a pointless profit while the world goes to Hell.
Re: Just for curious...
Earth, Elon's personal toilet and dumping ground.
Re: Just for curious...
Is it that hard to disable satellites?
Re: Just for curious...
>"The long term problem for Starlink is that as fiber and 5G expand..."
Ha. Hahahaha!
Yeah, telcos have had decades to run fiber to my neighborhood. Hasn't happened, no plans to make it happen. 5G service? I have to drive 8 miles to get a single bar of any cell service, much less 5G.
Sure, right, now that Starlink is eating their lunch they will invest in upgrading their terrestrial service standards. They walked away from that market years ago and are glad they are not being forced to invest.
Re: Just for curious...
Dunno where you live but where I am in the midwest even the smallest towns are getting fiber, often out to even remote farmsteads because it is the rural electric cooperative that's doing it. AT&T seems to have given up improving their cell network around here, but Verizon keeps lighting up more 5G (including some 6 GHz stuff they list as "UW" even though it isn't, but I see 400 Mbps on speedtest a half mile from the tower...unfortunately not in my house which is in a low spot and will probably always have 2 bars) and I hear TMobile is doing the same with theirs.
Maybe it helps that we're Centurylink country, so everyone gave up hope long ago that they'd do anything. Now that others are running fiber they've started doing some in my state, but only in the places where there is already fiber! I'm sure that makes sense to some lawyer or beancounter somewhere, but it doesn't make any sense to anyone else.
Re: Just for curious...
We probably won't know. It is likely that Starlink's profits will grow as they add more regions. There has been proven demand in many parts of Africa that they don't serve, so that will probably help them if they can add those regions. They're also clearly banking on the connection to phones being profitable, although I doubt it will end up being popular because I expect it to cost a large amount, only allow you to send a few text messages, or both, and I doubt many people will buy that.
In the US, Starlink may be able to sustain their profits by joining other ISPs to prevent the FCC from trying to improve the state of rural broadband. Starlink stands to gain even more than other companies because those ISPs can continue to collect their subsidies, but Starlink can provide service that people want to buy if they can afford it. While Starlink is not very competitive if you have fast wired internet, there are lots of places that don't have that. If they can prevent wires from being installed and keep expanding into those regions, it could make them plenty of money. I'm less convinced that it's making them that much money now, Musk's claims notwithstanding.
Re: Just for curious...
In the US, Starlink may be able to sustain their profits by joining other ISPs to prevent the FCC from trying to improve the state of rural broadband
Starlink wants to prevent it because those funds are only for building infrastructure in rural areas to connect people who live there. That's the holdup in a lot of places, it costs a lot to wire them up and won't pay back for 10 or 20 years. Telcos want payback in 5 years or less or they won't invest. This is not a subsidy to pay their bills, it goes directly to the telcos for capital investments they wouldn't otherwise make.
It is not intended to subsidize companies who already provide connectivity in those areas, which Starlink does, so Musk is pissed he can't dip his wick in billions of taxpayer funds like he did at Tesla and SpaceX. Because he can't have it, he wants the program shut down. Come to think of it, that's probably why he wants to be Trump's "efficiency" guy, his one act will be to shut down that program and then he'll quit.
Brilliant
Mush cost cutting at work. Reduce the cost to build by reducing the RF shielding. Brilliant and typical Musk.
Re: Brilliant
Sounds more like regulators asleep at the wheel as usual.
And really Starlink should be required to get approval from every country that they fly over to ensure they meet the local regulations for unintentional spurting.
Re: Brilliant
"Sounds more like regulators asleep at the wheel as usual."
As the article states...
"As we noted alongside the previous study, there aren't any international regulations that control the emissions of UEMR from satellites."
How come there's no regulation?
I'd have thought that SpaceX had to satisfy whatever US authorities about their payloads as well as their rockets. No? And I'd have expected a grown-up (?) nation like the US to test for things like radio emissions. Maybe it's all a plot to allow the Ukrainians to sense Russian missiles passively? Or the Israeli's to blow up somthing/somebody else?
Re: How come there's no regulation?
[1]https://www.fcc.gov/document/partial-grant-spacex-gen2-application-allow-e-band-operations
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/document/partial-grant-spacex-gen2-application-allow-e-band-operations
Re: How come there's no regulation?
The FCC doesn't test satellites or other hardware themselves, they rely on the applicant to do proper testing and present results in their FCC filings showing they meet the regulations. If they do not meet the regulatory limits, the FCC can pull their license to operate. Whether that would mean shutting down some functionality of the Gen 2 satellites, reducing their power output, or shutting them down entirely, who knows.
Rest assured, if that happens Musk will pull a Trump and claim it is a political hit job by Biden and Harris, and lie "I reviewed the testing done personally and it is fine, the FCC is just incompetent".
sdr
My guess -- and it is just a guess -- is the designs are leaning more on software definred radios and less on RF filters (which would directly cut out of band emissions.). If you are going to operate in a fixed band you slap on filters. If you want a flexible system the temptation is to leave the RF filters out as miuch as possible.
(This was an issue with ground equipment... the modern 3G/4G/5G cell sites don't usujally have 2 through 5G radios, they have general radios communicating with a computer creating and receiving the 2 through 5G signals in software.). There were 1 or 2 bands of the many used in the US where they found they had to run redujced power in those bands because those radios wouldn't stay tightly enough within those couple bands. In hindsight they probably would have built sites with filters built. but these were already deployed cell sites were new 4G. or 5G bands were turned on in some cases years later.
Don't the chinese have a nice device to shoot down rogue satellites?
I wonder if it's powerful enough to cook my popcorn.
Musk needs to GO
I've got an idea!
We should put telescopes in space. Stop relying on ground based celestial observation. Totally bypass all the atmosphere and all the other interference, solve multiple problems at once. I cannot believe no one has thought of this before.
Just for curious...
How much does it cast to launch each of these several thousand satellites? Is there really enough traffic to make it pay? Or is it a huge vanity project?