6 ms·

So basically, you can carry: - FlexSolar 40W panel: 1.35kg - Nitecore NB20000 ~75Wh battery: 300g - Starlink Mini: 1.1kg - Smartphone: 250g For 3kg you hav

by devit 2y ago

So basically, you can carry: - FlexSolar 40W panel: 1.35kg - Nitecore NB20000 ~75Wh battery: 300g - Starlink Mini: 1.1kg - Smartphone: 250g For 3kg you have something that should give 2-3 hours of Internet usage on an average EU/USA good weather day (assuming 20% solar panel for 10 hours = 80Wh/day, 25-35W power usage of Starlink Mini + smartphone). For each extra 1.65kg you get an additional 2-3 hours, resulting in 7.95kg for 8-12 hours, 11.25kg for 12-16 hours. Not bad, but not good either.

JKCalhoun 2y ago
Somehow I'm left thinking — I go hiking to get away from the internet.
- lxgr 2y ago
  Most trails I like to go on have cell coverage, but I usually don't find it a problem to just put my phone on silent. That option will always be there! I realize that some people don't have that luxury due to work or family obligations, but for these, doesn't affordably connectivity actually open up the possibility of spending extended time outdoors that they just didn't have before?
e40 2y ago
Becomes much more interesting for vehicles in remote locations.
lxgr 2y ago
Compared to what? Even remotely comparable solutions drawing less power either cost something like $5-10 per megabyte (Inmarsat L-band, i.e. BGAN, Iridium Certus) or require even more power (Inmarsat Ka-band) and still cost something like 50 cent per megabyte! Monthly plans start at several hundred dollars, and terminals start in the low 4 to medium 5 digit ranges. If you can live without Internet when backpacking, enjoy the outdoors! If you need it for whatever reason, this just cut the cost per megabyte by about 95% and the cost for the terminal by 99%. You'll probably also not hate LEO latencies compared to GEO.
- devit 2y ago
  Compared to being in LTE coverage and only needing a smartphone with 2-3W power draw (around 10% of the Starlink Mini).
  - clarkmcc 2y ago
    That’s like comparing apples to oranges though. This was never meant to be used in situations where you have a smartphone and LTE service.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    What makes you think you need satellite communications when there's (working) LTE? Obviously that's not the use case, just like you don't need fixed Starlink when there's (working) gigabit fiber available.
    - devit 2y ago
      I mean ideally (for Internet access purposes) one would have worldwide LTE coverage via cell towers and just use smartphones; the Starlink system is an alternative to that, so it makes sense to compare it. From an individual perspective, if you want Internet access and don't have to be in a specific place, the current alternative to Starlink is to simply limit your wilderness living to places with or near areas of cell phone coverage (which potentially results in tradeoffs, of course).
      - grecy 2y ago
        > I mean ideally (for Internet access purposes) one would have worldwide LTE coverage via cell towers As someone that has explored a lot of Australia, Alaska, Yukon, Africa and South America, I'm having trouble parsing your statement. I've driven more than 1,000 miles for 10 days with absolutely nothing. No town. No people. No cars. Nothing. I've canoed for 15 days well over 3,000 miles from the nearest town, road, building or electricity. The idea you could cover the globe in LTE cell towers is unfathomable.
grecy 2y ago
> Not bad, but not good either It is insanely good. Out of this world. A few years ago I spent 3 years driving around Africa and looked into satellite internet options from all the existing providers. Any plan that offered anything remotely close to 1GB per month was 5x the cost of the entire 3 year expedition. This WILL change the world.
- devit 2y ago
  But if you are driving (and thus can haul unlimited weight including huge solar panels, batteries and inverters) it seems like the existing Starlink dish would be fine, and this looks like might be worse since it doesn't have automatic orientation.
  - grecy 2y ago
    Sure, now Starlink works. What I'm saying is Starlink in general is a complete world-changer compared to just 5 years ago. This mini just continues that trend.
devit 2y ago
BTW, their specs says it wants minimum 100W USB PD, so you'll actually need a different battery that can do that which is probably going to be heavier (the NB20000 tops out at 45W), assuming that's accurate. The 630g Anker 737 PowerCore 24K might be a good option, and also the 765g HyperJuice 245W. So this adds 0.3-0.45kg to the estimate.
- rallison 2y ago
  Yep, I was going to note this too. Assuming the Mini specs are correct and it actually needs 100W (20V/5A) as a minimum profile, most cheaper power banks won't work with it. But yeah, options like the Anker 737 24K should work great (which supports 20V/5A and 28V/5A). I happened to pick up a few of the 737s recently, so I'll be curious to try them out with the Mini soon. Just waiting for Starlink to actually add the usb-c to DC barrel adapter to the online shop.

by devit 2y ago

JKCalhoun 2y ago

Somehow I'm left thinking — I go hiking to get away from the internet.

lxgr 2y ago
Most trails I like to go on have cell coverage, but I usually don't find it a problem to just put my phone on silent. That option will always be there! I realize that some people don't have that luxury due to work or family obligations, but for these, doesn't affordably connectivity actually open up the possibility of spending extended time outdoors that they just didn't have before?

e40 2y ago

Becomes much more interesting for vehicles in remote locations.

lxgr 2y ago

Compared to what? Even remotely comparable solutions drawing less power either cost something like $5-10 per megabyte (Inmarsat L-band, i.e. BGAN, Iridium Certus) or require even more power (Inmarsat Ka-band) and still cost something like 50 cent per megabyte! Monthly plans start at several hundred dollars, and terminals start in the low 4 to medium 5 digit ranges. If you can live without Internet when backpacking, enjoy the outdoors! If you need it for whatever reason, this just cut the cost per megabyte by about 95% and the cost for the terminal by 99%. You'll probably also not hate LEO latencies compared to GEO.

devit 2y ago
Compared to being in LTE coverage and only needing a smartphone with 2-3W power draw (around 10% of the Starlink Mini).
- clarkmcc 2y ago
  That’s like comparing apples to oranges though. This was never meant to be used in situations where you have a smartphone and LTE service.
- lxgr 2y ago
  What makes you think you need satellite communications when there's (working) LTE? Obviously that's not the use case, just like you don't need fixed Starlink when there's (working) gigabit fiber available.
  - devit 2y ago
    I mean ideally (for Internet access purposes) one would have worldwide LTE coverage via cell towers and just use smartphones; the Starlink system is an alternative to that, so it makes sense to compare it. From an individual perspective, if you want Internet access and don't have to be in a specific place, the current alternative to Starlink is to simply limit your wilderness living to places with or near areas of cell phone coverage (which potentially results in tradeoffs, of course).
    - grecy 2y ago
      > I mean ideally (for Internet access purposes) one would have worldwide LTE coverage via cell towers As someone that has explored a lot of Australia, Alaska, Yukon, Africa and South America, I'm having trouble parsing your statement. I've driven more than 1,000 miles for 10 days with absolutely nothing. No town. No people. No cars. Nothing. I've canoed for 15 days well over 3,000 miles from the nearest town, road, building or electricity. The idea you could cover the globe in LTE cell towers is unfathomable.

grecy 2y ago

> Not bad, but not good either It is insanely good. Out of this world. A few years ago I spent 3 years driving around Africa and looked into satellite internet options from all the existing providers. Any plan that offered anything remotely close to 1GB per month was 5x the cost of the entire 3 year expedition. This WILL change the world.

devit 2y ago
But if you are driving (and thus can haul unlimited weight including huge solar panels, batteries and inverters) it seems like the existing Starlink dish would be fine, and this looks like might be worse since it doesn't have automatic orientation.
- grecy 2y ago
  Sure, now Starlink works. What I'm saying is Starlink in general is a complete world-changer compared to just 5 years ago. This mini just continues that trend.

devit 2y ago

BTW, their specs says it wants minimum 100W USB PD, so you'll actually need a different battery that can do that which is probably going to be heavier (the NB20000 tops out at 45W), assuming that's accurate. The 630g Anker 737 PowerCore 24K might be a good option, and also the 765g HyperJuice 245W. So this adds 0.3-0.45kg to the estimate.

rallison 2y ago
Yep, I was going to note this too. Assuming the Mini specs are correct and it actually needs 100W (20V/5A) as a minimum profile, most cheaper power banks won't work with it. But yeah, options like the Anker 737 24K should work great (which supports 20V/5A and 28V/5A). I happened to pick up a few of the 737s recently, so I'll be curious to try them out with the Mini soon. Just waiting for Starlink to actually add the usb-c to DC barrel adapter to the online shop.